11.2.

2007 (Revision 1, Edited for Public Release)

ENCELADUS

Saturns Active Ice Moon

Preface

Upon the recommendation of the NASA Advisory Council Planetary Science Subcommittee and the Outer Planets Assessment Group (OPAG), NASA Headquarters (HQ) Planetary Science Divi sion commissioned pre-Phase A studies of Flagship missions to Europa, Ganymede/Jupiter system, Enceladus, and Titan. The purpose of these studies is to inform near term strategic decisions for the next Flagship mission. NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) was directed to conduct the Enceladus study. NASA HQ appointed an Enceladus Science Definition Team (SDT) consisting of members drawn from the science community. The Enceladus SDT developed the science objectives, prioritized subobjectives, defined an example strawman payload, and worked with the mission design team to create the mission scenarios, concept of operations and instrument accommodation requirements. The SDT based science priorities on those recommended in the 2003 Decadal Survey for planetary science and on work performed by previous science teams in support of the JPL-led study documented in Titan and Enceladus $1B Mission Feasibility Report, JPL D-37401 (Reh et al. 2007). (The two SDT Co-Chairs provided a consolidated view of the SDTs advice as input for this study.) The NASA GSFC assembled a mission design team (listed in Section 5) to develop mission ar chitecture concepts to address the science goals identified by the SDT. A Champion Team (listed in Section 5), whose members have expertise in the keys areas required for this study, provided advice to the mission design team at critical decision points, and reviewed and endorsed this report. Relative to the initial edition of the report released 29 August 2007, this Revision 1 edition contains changes that permit the report to be released to the public. It also includes editorial corrections along with a few minor technical corrections which materially affect neither the results nor the recommenda tions.

ENCELADUS

Table of Contents 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4 1.3.5 1.4 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.2.1 2.1.3 2.1.3.1 2.1.3.2 2.1.3.3 2.1.3.4 2.1.4 2.1.4.1 2.1.4.2 2.1.5 2.1.5.1 2.1.5.2 2.1.5.3 2.1.5.4 2.1.5.5 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.1.1 2.3.1.2 2.3.1.3 2.3.1.4 2.3.1.5 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 Enceladus Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Science Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 Measurement Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2
Instrument Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2 Mission Architecture Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2
Key Challenges to Studying Enceladus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2 Technical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-3
Architecture Trade Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-3 Trade Space Concept Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-3
Remaining Architectures in Trade Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-3
Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-3 Conclusions and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
Enceladus Science Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Science Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 Introduction: The Importance of Enceladus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Priority 1 Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-2 Biological Potential. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-2 Priority 2 Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4 Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4 Cryovolcanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-6
Tectonics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-7 Tidal Heating and Interior Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-8
Priority 3 Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Saturn System Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Surface Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 Relationship to NASA Strategic Goals and Decadal Survey Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
The First Billion Years of Solar System History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
Volatiles and Organics: The Stuff of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14 The Origin and Evolution of Habitable Worlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
Processes: How Planetary Systems Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
Relevance to Decadal Survey Large Satellites Sub-Panel Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
Measurement Requirements Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
Traceability Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
Cassinis Ability to Make These Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
Instrument Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20 Orbiter Remote Sensing Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
Thermal Mapper (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21 Near-IR Mapper (Category 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
Visible Mapper (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22 Framing Camera (Category 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22 UV Spectrometer (Category 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22
iii

ENCELADUS

2.3.2 2.3.2.1 2.3.2.2 2.3.2.3 2.3.2.4 2.3.3 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.2 2.3.3.3 2.3.3.4 2.3.4 2.3.4.1 2.3.4.2 2.3.5 2.3.5.1 2.3.5.2 2.3.5.3 2.3.5.4 2.3.5.5 2.3.5.6 2.3.5.7 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.1.1 2.4.1.2 2.4.1.3 2.4.1.4 2.4.1.5 2.4.6 2.5 2.6 3.0 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.1.1 3.1.1.2 3.1.1.2.1 3.1.1.2.1.1 3.1.1.2.1.2 3.1.1.2.2 3.1.1.2.3 3.1.1.3 3.1.1.4 Orbiter Geophysics Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
Laser Altimeter (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
Radio Science (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
Magnetometer (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24
Radar Sounder (Category 1 or 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24
Saturn Orbiter In-Situ Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25
Ion and Neutral Gas Mass Spectrometer (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25
Dust Analyzer (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25
Low Energy Plasma Analyzer (Category 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
Energetic Particle Spectrometer (Category 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
Enceladus Orbiter In-Situ Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27
Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27
Dust Micro-Analyzer (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27
Enceladus Soft Lander Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28
Lander Camera (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28
Seismometer (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28
Radio Science (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29
Surface Chemistry Package and Oxidant Detector (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29
Laser Desorption Mass Spectrometer (Category 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29
Magnetometer (Category 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30
Tunable Laser Spectrometer (Category 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30
Hard Lander Instruments (Category 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
Matrices Relating Instruments to Science Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
Science Evaluation of Architecture Trade Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
Mission Configurations Not Chosen for Detailed Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
Sample Return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
Dumb Impactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34
Saturn Orbiter Only (no landers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34
Single Flyby Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35
Lander-Only Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35
Missions Chosen for Detailed Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35
Plume Particle Sizes and Abundances: Potential Hazards and Sampling Opportunities . . . . 2-35
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38
Mission Architecture Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Technical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1
Risk Reduction / Fact Finding Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1
Key Challenges to Studying Enceladus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1
Trajectory Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2
Gravity Assists to Saturn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2
SEP Trajectories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2
Chemical Propulsion Trajectories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2
Saturn Orbit Insertion and Gravity Assists within the Saturn System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-3
Free Return Trajectories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5
Aerocapture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-6
Particle Shielding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-8

iv

ENCELADUS

3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.3.1 3.3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1.2 3.3.3.1.3 3.3.3.1.4 3.3.3.1.5 3.3.3.1.6 3.3.3.2 3.3.3.2.1 3.3.3.2.2 3.3.3.2.3 3.3.3.2.3.1 3.3.3.2.3.2 3.3.3.2.3.3 3.3.3.2.3.4 3.3.3.2.3.5 3.3.3.2.3.6 3.3.3.2.3.7 3.3.3.2.4 3.3.3.2.4.1 3.3.3.2.4.2 3.3.3.2.4.3 3.3.3.2.4.4 3.3.3.2.4.5 3.3.3.2.4.6 3.3.3.2.4.7 3.3.3.2.4.8 3.3.3.2.4.9 3.3.3.2.5 3.3.3.2.6 3.3.3.2.7 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.3.6.1 3.3.6.2 3.3.6.3 3.3.6.3.1 3.3.6.3.2 3.3.6.4 3.3.6.5 Architecture Trade Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
Enceladus Orbiter with Soft Lander (Enceladus-OL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Enceladus-OL Architecture Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Enceladus-OL Science Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
Enceladus-OL Mission Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
Enceladus-OL Flight Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
Enceladus-OL Launch Window. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
Enceladus-OL Capture at Saturn and Rhea/Dione Walkdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17 Enceladus-OL Orbit Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Enceladus-OL Landing Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20 Enceladus-OL Timeline of Key Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21 Enceladus-OL Mission DV Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
Enceladus-OL Flight Segment Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21 Enceladus-OL Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22
Enceladus-OL Mass Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22 Enceladus-OL Booster and Orbiter (B & O) Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27 Enceladus-OL (B & O) Mechanical Subsystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
Enceladus-OL (B & O) Power Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27 Enceladus-OL (B & O) Thermal Control Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28 Enceladus-OL (B & O) Propulsion Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29 Enceladus-OL (B & O) Attitude Control Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31 Enceladus-OL (B & O) Avionics and Flight Software Subsystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31
Enceladus-OL (B & O) Communications Subsystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32
Enceladus-OL Lander Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33 Enceladus-OL Lander Descent, Landing, and Surface Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33 Enceladus-OL Lander Mechanical Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34
Enceladus-OL Lander Power Subsystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34
Enceladus-OL Lander Avionics and Flight Software Subsystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34 Enceladus-OL Lander Propulsion Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35 Enceladus-OL Lander Attitude Control Subsystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
Enceladus-OL Lander Thermal Control Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35 Enceladus-OL Lander Communications Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35 Enceladus-OL Lander Integration and Test (I&T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
Enceladus-OL Mission Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35 Enceladus-OL Orbital Debris Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36 Enceladus-OL Mission Level I&T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36
Enceladus-OL Operational Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36 Enceladus-OL Planetary Protection Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38 Enceladus-OL Major Open Issues and Trades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38 Flight Dynamics and DV Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38 Radiation Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38 Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Mission Reliability Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Hibernation Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Landing Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Fault Detection and Correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39

ENCELADUS

3.3.6.6 3.3.6.7 3.3.6.7.1 3.3.6.7.2 3.3.6.8 3.3.7 3.3.8 3.3.8.1 3.3.8.2 3.3.9 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.3.1 3.4.3.1.1 3.4.3.1.2 3.4.3.1.3 3.4.3.1.4 3.4.3.1.5 3.4.3.2 3.4.3.2.1 3.4.3.2.2 3.4.3.2.3 3.4.3.2.3.1 3.4.3.2.3.2 3.4.3.2.3.3 3.4.3.2.3.4 3.4.3.2.4 3.4.3.2.5 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6 3.4.6.1 3.4.6.3 3.4.6.4 3.4.6.5 3.4.7 3.4.8 3.4.9 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.3.1 3.5.3.1.1 Mapping Duty Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Science Downlink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Medium Gain Antenna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Staging and Booster Disposal Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Enceladus-OL Technology Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Enceladus-OL Technical Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40
Mission Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40
Enceladus Gravity Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40
Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40 Enceladus Orbiter (Enceladus-O). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41
Enceladus-O Architecture Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41 Enceladus-O Science Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41
Enceladus-O Mission Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41 Enceladus-O Flight Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41 Enceladus-O Launch Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41 Enceladus-O Capture at Saturn and Rhea Walkdown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41
Enceladus-O Orbit Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42 Enceladus-O Timeline of Key Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42
Enceladus-O Mission DV Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42 Enceladus-O Flight Segment Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42
Enceladus-O Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
Enceladus-O Mass Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
Enceladus-O Booster and Orbiter (B&O) Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
Enceladus-O (B&O) Power Subsystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
Enceladus-O (B&O) Propulsion Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
Enceladus-O (B&O) Thermal Control Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-48
Enceladus-O (B&O) Communications Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-48
Enceladus-O Mission Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-48
Enceladus-O Mission Level I&T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-48
Enceladus-O Operational Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49 Enceladus-O Planetary Protection (& Disposal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49 Enceladus-O Major Open Issues and Trades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49
Single vs. Two Stage Vehicle / Booster Disposal Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49 Additional ASRG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49 Use of ACS Thrusters Prior to SOI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49 Radiator Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49 Enceladus-O Technology Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49 Enceladus-O Technical Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-50
Enceladus-O Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-50
Saturn Orbiter with Soft Lander (Saturn-OL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51
Saturn-OL Architecture Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51 Saturn-OL Science Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51
Saturn-OL Mission Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51
Saturn-OL Flight Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51 Launch Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51
vi

ENCELADUS

3.5.3.1.2 3.5.3.1.3 3.5.3.1.4 3.5.3.2 3.5.3.2.1 3.5.3.2.2 3.5.3.2.3 3.5.3.2.3.1 3.5.3.2.3.2 3.5.3.2.3.3 3.5.3.2.3.4 3.5.3.2.3.5 3.5.3.2.3.6 3.5.3.2.4 3.5.3.2.4.1 3.5.3.2.4.2 3.5.3.2.4.3 3.5.3.2.4.4 3.5.3.2.4.5 3.5.3.2.4.6 3.5.3.2.4.7 3.5.3.2.5 3.5.3.2.5.1 3.5.3.2.5.2 3.5.3.2.5.3 3.5.3.2.5.4 3.5.3.2.5.5 3.5.3.2.5.6 3.5.3.2.5.7 3.5.3.2.5.8 3.5.3.2.5.9 3.5.3.2.6 3.5.3.2.7 3.5.3.2.8 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.5.6 3.5.6.1 3.5.6.2 3.5.6.3 3.5.6.4 3.5.6.5 3.5.6.6 3.5.6.7 3.5.6.8 3.5.6.9 Multiple Passes of Enceladus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-54 Landing on Enceladus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-54 Saturn-OL Timeline of Key Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-54 Saturn-OL Flight Segment Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-54 Saturn-OL Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-54
Saturn-OL Mass Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-54 Saturn-OL SEP Module Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-57 Saturn-OL SEP Module Mechanical Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-57 Saturn-OL SEP Module Power Subsystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-59
Saturn-OL SEP Module Propulsion and Attitude Control Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-59 Saturn-OL SEP Module Thermal Control Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-59 Saturn-OL SEP Module Avionics, Flight Software, and Communications Subsystems . . . . 3-60
Saturn-OL SEP Module Requirements on Orbiter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-60
Saturn-OL Orbiter Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-60
Saturn-OL Orbiter Mechanical Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-60
Saturn-OL Orbiter Power Subsystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-60
Saturn-OL Orbiter Thermal Control Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-62
Saturn-OL Orbiter Propulsion Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-62
Saturn-OL Orbiter Attitude Control Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-63
Saturn-OL Orbiter Avionics and Software Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-63
Saturn-OL Orbiter Communications Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-63
Saturn-OL Lander Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-63
Saturn-OL Lander Braking, Descent, Landing, and Surface Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-64
Saturn-OL Lander Mechanical Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-64
Saturn-OL Lander Power Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-64
Saturn-OL Lander Avionics and Flight Software Subsystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-65
Saturn-OL Lander Propulsion Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-65
Saturn-OL Lander Attitude Control Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-65
Saturn-OL Lander Thermal Control Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-65
Saturn-OL Lander Communications Subsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-65
Saturn-OL Lander Integration and Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-65
Saturn-OL Mission Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-65
Saturn-OL Mission Orbital Debris Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-66
Saturn-OL I&T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-66 Saturn-OL Operational Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-66
Saturn-OL Planetary Protection(& Disposal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-67
Saturn-OL Major Open Issues and Trades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-67 SEP Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-67 IMU Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-67 Lander Heaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-67
Radiation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68
Debris Shielding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68
Lander Separation Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68
SEP Module Requirements on Orbiter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68
Orbiter Power System Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68
Thruster Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68

vii

ENCELADUS

3.5.6.10 3.5.6.11 3.5.6.12 3.5.7 3.5.7.1 3.5.7.2 3.5.8 3.5.9 3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.6.4 3.6.5 3.6.6 3.6.7 3.6.8 3.7 Lander Fault Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68
SEP Trajectory Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68
Lander DV Reserve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68 Saturn-OL Technology Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68
SEP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68 Landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68 Saturn-OL Technical Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68
Saturn-OL Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-69 Other Identified Architectures in the Trade Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-70 Enceladus Orbiter that Lands w/Chemical Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-70 Enceladus Orbiter Using SEP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-70
Enceladus Orbiter with Hard Impactor(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-70
Saturn Orbiter with Soft Lander Using Chemical Propulsion and Gravity Assists . . . . . . . 3-72 Saturn Orbiter with Soft Lander Using SEP and More Saturnian Moon Flybys. . . . . . . . . 3-72
Saturn Orbiter with Hard Impactor(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-73
Sample Return with or without an Orbiter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-73 Dual Launch Vehicle Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-73 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-75

4.0 Conclusions and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

5.0 Team Members and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Appendix A: Planetary Protection Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1
Appendix B: Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1
Appendix C: Basic Planetary Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-1
Appendix D: Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D-1
Appendix E: Comparison of Trade Space Concept Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E-1
Appendix F: Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-1

viii

ENCELADUS

1.0 ExEcutivE Summary 1.1 Overview Based on existing knowledge of Enceladus and 2003 Decadal Survey goals, the Science Definition Team (SDT) developed science goals for studying Enceladus and identified the possible mission con figurations that could meet those goals. Orbiters, as well as a single flyby spacecraft, were considered with the added possibility for sample return and various lander-type options. Table 1.1-1 shows the mission configuration trade space and provides a brief assessment of science value. Section 2 of this report outlines why low science value, high risk, or other reasons removed some configurations from further study. Within this trade space the mission design team identified 12 possible architectures that could be developed into mission concepts to meet the stat ed science goals. Of those 12, three were selected for concept development because of their high sci ence value and their ability to provide insight into the remainder of the trade space; an Enceladus orbiter with a soft lander (Enceladus-OL), an Enceladus orbiter (Enceladus-O) and a Saturn or biter with a soft lander (Saturn-OL). These three cases were purposely selected to enable evaluation of different points in the architecture trade space and to expedite developing an understanding of basic system sizing, performance, and cost over the broad range of potential implementations. Sections 3.3 through 3.5 of this report present these three concepts. Section 3.6 uses these re sults, along with the trajectory and technology trade study work performed, to provide insight into the feasibility, advantages, and disadvantages of the other possible architectures identified. table 1.1-1: Full Configuration Trade Space
configuration Saturn Orbiter Enceladus Orbiter Single Flyby Lander Only Only Incremental science return High science return Low science return Low science return + Soft Lander High science return Highest science return Low science return N/A + Hard Lander(s) Seismic network adds value Seismic network adds value No way to return data No way to return data 1-1
+ Dumb impactor Modest science return Modest science return Modest science return Modest science return + Plume Sample return High potential science return High potential science return High potential science return High potential science return

1.2 Enceladus Science Enceladus, a 500-km diameter moon of Saturn, is one of the most remarkable celestial bodies in the solar system, as revealed by recent discoveries from the Cassini mission. It is the only icy world in the solar system proven to have current geological activity, offer the possibly of biological potential, and provides a way to sample fresh material from its interior via active plumes. The plume source region on Enceladus provides a plausible site for complex organic chemistry and even biological processes, and fresh samples from this environ ment can be obtained by flying past Enceladus and sampling its plume. Enceladus provides dynamic examples of phe nomena that have been important at some time throughout the outer solar system. Also, because Enceladus is the source of the Saturnian E-ring, as well as the extensive neutral O and OH clouds that fill the middle Saturnian magnetosphere, the moon plays a pivotal role in the Saturnian system, similar in some ways to Ios role in the Jovian sys tem. For all these reasons, a mission to Enceladus would produce valuable science that is highly relevant to NASA goals as laid out in the 2003 Decadal Survey for planetary science. 1.2.1 Science Goals The overarching science goal for a future Enceladus mission is the investigation of its biological potential, as that ties together many inter-related disciplines and has high priority in the Decadal Survey. Second-level goals, which are essential to addressing the primary goal, are the understanding of Enceladus tidal heating and in terior structure, its composition, its cryovolcanism, and its tectonism. Of tertiary importance is the

ENCELADUS

understanding of surface processes, and the in teraction of Enceladus with the rest of the Saturn system. 1.2.2 measurement requirements The key measurements needed to address these science goals would:

It is recognized that many different science in struments can be used to address the same science goals. While the instruments presented are not an exhaustive list, they provide examples of balanced science payloads and allowed for operations and mass scoping of detailed mission designs. 1.3 mission architecture assessment 1.3.1 Key challenges to Studying Enceladus Missions to study Enceladus will present some key challenges. Those common to any mission to Saturn include designing a trajectory that will deliver the spacecraft to the Saturn system in a rea sonable amount of time, with a reasonable amount of payload. Those unique to Enceladus include the large DV required once in the Saturn system to either orbit or land on Enceladus. Alternatively, they include methods to mitigate that large DV at the expense of adding to mission duration and life cycle cost. They also include methods to pro tect the spacecraft while it samples the plume near the Enceladus south pole. Additionally, planetary protection considerations become important not only for disposal of landers left on Enceladus, but also for orbiters which may impact Enceladus. The same is potentially true for boosters which sepa rate between Titan and Enceladus and which may impact other icy moons within the Saturn system over the same time interval. Risk reduction analyses were conducted to help address some of these challenges includ ing: a) evaluation of inner planet gravity assists enroute to Saturn, b) the use of Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) as well as chemical propulsion trajectories, c) the use of either Saturn moons be tween Titan and Enceladus and aerocapture to reduce the DV required to either orbit or land on Enceladus, d) the viability of a free-return trajec tory for a sample return mission, and e) require ments for debris shielding. The evaluation of these risks identified further considerations. The use of gravity assists at Venus drives the spacecraft thermal system, and the use of gravity assists at Earth with a spacecraft that uses a radioisotope power supply imposes special safety constraints. Also, the extended duration between launch and the start of science operations result ing from the use of multiple gravity assists drives mission reliability. Additionally, for architectures that include orbiting Enceladus (a small moon), the characterization of the gravitational field of
1-2

Characterize the surface of Enceladus with global imaging, topographic, compositional, and thermal maps Probe the interior structure seismically and/or with sounding radar Probe the interior through tidal response, electromagnetic induction signature, and high-order gravity and shape mapping Investigate the chemical, pre-biotic, and poten tial biotic evolution of Enceladus with in-situ chemical analysis of plume gases and solids, and surface analysis.

Cassini will continue to add to our knowledge of Enceladus through the small number of close fly bys planned for the remainder of its mission. How ever, Cassini has limited ability to make the above measurements due to its brief time near Enceladus, the high speed of its encounters, instrumenta tion that is not optimized for these measurements, and its inability to perform in-situ surface science. Thus, the science goals defined here for a Flag ship mission are not expected to be fundamentally changed by new knowledge from Cassini, unless truly unexpected discoveries are made. 1.2.3 instrument types A broad suite of instruments were considered in this study to make these measurements. Remote sensing instruments include pushbroom visible, near-infrared, and thermal infrared mapping cameras, with a framing camera and an ultravi olet spectrometer as lower priority instruments. Geophysics instruments include a laser altim eter and radio science for measurement of tidal flexing and static topography and gravity, and a radar sounder when possible. In-situ instruments include plume dust and gas analyzers, including mass spectrometers, and for analysis of samples collected at low speed, a scanning electron micro scope. Lander instruments include a comprehen sive surface chemistry package and a seismometer.

ENCELADUS

Enceladus is a challenge as many of the orbits about Enceladus are significantly perturbed by the size and proximity of Saturn. Furthermore, a land ing on Enceladus must be conducted in a fully au tonomous manner, which means the lander must be able to identify and react to surface hazards as it approaches the surface. 1.3.2 technical approach Before commencing development of concept designs, the mission design team performed risk reduction and fact finding studies. This phase fo cused primarily on identifying trajectories for or biting Saturn, for orbiting Enceladus and for free return for sample collection. The team also con sulted with experts from other NASA centers and the Department of Energy (DOE) to examine:

3. Saturn orbiter with soft lander with SEP (Saturn-OL) 4. Enceladus orbiter that lands with chemical propulsion 5. Enceladus orbiter using SEP 6. Enceladus orbiter with hard impactor(s) 7. Saturn orbiter with soft lander using chemi cal propulsion and gravity assists 8. Saturn orbiter with soft lander using SEP and more Saturnian moon flybys 9. Saturn orbiter with hard impactor(s) 10. Sample return with or without orbiter 11. Dual launch vehicle loosely coupled orbit er/lander 12. Dual launch vehicle Low Earth Orbit (LEO) assembly 1.3.4 trade Space concept Designs Three promising mission concepts were devel oped: Enceladus-OL, Enceladus-O and SaturnOL. Sections 3.3 through 3.5 of this report present the details of these designs. Table 1.3-1 summarizes their salient features. No requirements for mission-specific technology development were identified for any of these concepts. 1.3.5 remaining architectures in trade Space The implications of the remaining architec ture concepts in the trade space are discussed in Section 3.6 of this report and summarized in Table 1.3-2. 1.4 cost Tables 1.4-1 to 1.4-3 show the cost estimates for the three concepts developed during this study, broken out by WBS element for fiscal year (FY) 2007 dollars.

solar electric and chemical propulsion aerocapture to reduce DV requirements debris shielding radioisotope power systems

Following this initial study phase, the team performed studies in the GSFC Integrated Mission Design Center (IMDC)1 to initiate the development of the Enceladus-OL, Enceladus-O and Saturn-OL concepts. 1.3.3 architecture trade Space The architecture trade space for this study is shown in Table 1.1-1. Some of these options were considered to be of low science priority, such as single flybys, and were not considered any further as explained in Section 2. In addition, there are many ways to implement each mission concept. For example, both solar electric and chemical propulsion systems were considered. The launch vehicles considered were limited to Atlas V 551 and Delta IV Heavy due to performance needs. Within this trade space, the following technical architectures were identified: 1. Enceladus orbiter with soft lander with chemical propulsion (Enceladus-OL) 2. Enceladus orbiter with chemical propulsion (Enceladus-O)
 The NASA/GSFC IMDC provides engineering analyses, end-to-end mission design products and grassroots and parametric cost estimates during concept development studies, which nominally last one to one and-a-half weeks per concept

1-3

ENCELADUS

table 1.3-1: Summary of Trade Space Concept Designs

Enceladus -OL Mission Description Instruments Trajectory (all use Saturn & Titan gravity assists) C3 (km2 /s2) Launch Date Nominal Mission Duration (years) Orbiter Science Ops (years) Lander Science Ops (days) Plume passages Number of Stages Propulsion Type DV from Chemical Propellant (m/s) Launch Mass (kg) Launch Vehicle Type Cost (FY07 $B) Enceladus orbiter w/soft lander Orbiter: imagers and in-situ Lander: imager, seismometer, sample analysis VVEES + Rhea & Dione gravity assists 9.05 29 Sep 208 8.3 2.4 5-8 2 @ 0.43 km/s 3 Dual-mode chemical booster & orbiter Mono-prop lander Booster and orbiter: 4497 Lander: 45 6320 Delta IV Heavy 2.8 to 3.3 Enceladus-O Enceladus orbiter Orbiter: imagers, radar, and in-situ VVEES + Rhea gravity assists 9.05 29 Sep 208 7.3 2.4 N/A 2@ 0.43 km/s 2 Dual-mode chemical booster & orbiter Booster and orbiter: 4977 580 Delta IV Heavy 2. to 2.4 Saturn OL Saturn orbiter w/soft lander Orbiter: imagers and in-situ Lander: imager, seismometer, sample analysis Earth gravity assist 9.2 Mar 208 9.5 .3 5-8 2@ 3.8 km/s 3 25 kW SEP module Dual-mode chemical orbiter Bi- prop lander Orbiter: 2797 Lander: 435 696 Delta IV Heavy 2.6 to 3.0

1-4

table 1.3-2: Summary of Remaining Trade Space Architectures

remaining architectures in trade Space Derivation Enceladus-OL or Enceladus-O Orbiter from Enceladus-O and SEP from Saturn-OL Enceladus-OL or Enceladus-O Saturn-OL with gravity assists from the Enceladus-OL Smaller launch vehicle Less DV for the lander, slower flybys, and increased plume dwell time Low cost multipoint surface observation for enhanced geophysics Much less propellant required than Trade Space Concept Designs More robust lander and orbiter More robust lander and orbiter Saturn-OL with lesser moon gravity assists of Enceladus-OL Saturn-OL Not related Enceladus-OL Enceladus-OL Low cost multipoint surface observation for enhanced geophysics Shorter mission lifetime, ~ 5.5 years, than Enceladus-O Longer lander lifetime Benefi ts Drawbacks Complexity required for instruments and subsystems to work in two different environments, mission life SEP adds complexity and expense Concepts and technology for hard landers are immature Longer required mission lifetime than Saturn-OL Longer required mission lifetime; 2.5 to 5 years longer Concepts and technology for hard landers are immature Long mission (~26 years), single sample opportunity; high Earth reentry velocity Cost Not Feasible

architecture

Enceladus orbiter that lands with chemical propulsion

Enceladus orbiter using SEP

Enceladus orbiter with hard impactor(s)

Saturn orbiter with soft lander using chemical propulsion and gravity assists

Saturn orbiter with soft lander using SEP and more Saturnian moon flybys

Saturn orbiter with hard impactor(s)

ENCELADUS

1-5

Sample return with or without orbiter

Dual launch vehicle loosely coupled orbiter/lander

Dual launch vehicle LEO assembly

ENCELADUS

table 1.4-1: Enceladus-OL Cost Estimate

Fy07 ($m) cost Element Project Elements: .0 Project Management 2.0 Mission Sys Engr 3.0 Mission Assurance 4.0 Science 5.0 Payload 6.0 Spacecraft 7.0 Mission Ops 9.0 Ground System 0.0 System I&T Subtotal uncertainty range (40% to 70%) Subtotal w/ uncertainty reserves Sub total w/reserves (30%) Elements w/o cont: 8.0 Launch Vehicle .0 E/PO Fy07 ($B) mission total range 2.8 to 3.3 486 3 61 52 38 124 225 417 270 52 40 1,279 511 to 895 1790 to 2173 531 to 645 2320 to 2818

table 1.4-2: Enceladus-O Cost Estimate

Fy07 ($m) cost Element Project Elements: .0 Project Management 2.0 Mission Systems Engineering 3.0 Mission Assurance 4.0 Science 5.0 Payload 6.0 Spacecraft 7.0 Mission Operations 9.0 Ground System 0.0 System I&T Subtotal uncertainty range (40-70%) Subtotal w/uncertainty reserves Subtotal w/reserves (30%) Elements w/o cont: 8.0 Launch Vehicle .0 E/PO Fy07 ($B) mission total range: 2.1 to 2.4 486 2 350 to 613 1225 to 1488 363 to 441 1589 to 1929 53 43 34 54 128 251 240 49 24 876

1-6

ENCELADUS

table 1.4-3: Saturn-OL Cost Estimate

Fy07 ($m) cost Element Project Elements: .0 Project Management 2.0 Mission Sys Engr 3.0 Mission Assurance 4.0 Science 5.0 Payload 6.0 Spacecraft 7.0 Mission Ops 9.0 Ground System 0.0 System I&T Sub total uncertainty range (40-70%) Subtotal w/ uncertainty reserves Subtotal w/reserves (30%) Elements w/o cont: 8.0 Launch Vehicle .0 E/PO Fy07 ($B) mission total range: 2.6 to 3 486 3 460 to 805 1611 to 1956 476 to 579 2087 to 2534 61 52 39 78 200 495 137 54 35 1,151

and the interaction of Enceladus with the rest of the Saturn system. Cassini can still make valuable contributions towards addressing these questions, but is limited by its instrumentation, its orbit and by its inability to land on Enceladus. Thus Cassini cannot adequately address the advanced science goals defined here. These goals can be met most effectively by both orbiting Enceladus and landing on its sur face. Orbiting Enceladus allows comprehensive mapping of its surface morphology, composition and heat flow, including detailed investigation of the active plume vents. The interior structure and tidal heating mechanisms, including the presence or absence of a subsurface ocean, can also be in vestigated through determination of the moons gravity and global shape, its potential and shape Love numbers, its magnetic induction signature, and crustal structure can be probed using sound ing radar. Multiple plume passages at the low or bital speed of ~150 m/s will allow collection of intact plume particles and complex organic mole cules from the plume for onboard study. A lander provides the opportunity for seismometry in-situ chemical analysis and unique views of surface process. The mission design team developed three promising concepts using state of the practice technology: Enceladus-OL, Enceladus-O, and a Saturn-OL, with cost estimates in the two to three billion dollar ($FY07) range. All three pres ent the possibility of providing valuable Flag ship-level science, allow the further evaluation of the full architecture trade space, and represent single points in the architecture trade space. For each case, trades can be made that affect mission lifetime and deliverable mass. In addition, com mon key challenges, risks and technology liens emerged, including:
1-7

1.5 conclusions and Findings A mission to Enceladus would produce highvalue science that is highly relevant to NASA goals as laid out in the 2003 Decadal Survey and described in this report. The accessibility of sub surface water enable sampling through conven tional means and without complicated drilling scenarios. The SDT defined a comprehensive set of science goals that can be met, to varying de grees, by a wide range of mission configurations. The highest priority science goal for a future Enceladus mission is the investigation of its bio logical potential. Of secondary importance are the understanding of Enceladus tidal heating and interior structure, its composition, its cryo volcanism, and its tectonism. Of tertiary impor tance is the understanding of surface processes,

trajectory design and resultant DV budget chemical propulsion (enables more delivered mass at the cost of time) SEP (saves time at the expense of mass and complexity) aeroassist to decrease propellant mass (at the ex pense of complexity and mass for the aeroshell) deficiency of current gravity models of Enceladus

ENCELADUS

affects orbital stability estimates

paucity of flight data in Saturn environment radiation model long required lifetimes, regardless of which trajectory is chosen

has implications reliability

for

overall

mission

technology lien for critical spacecraft com ponents to undergo additional long-life test ing (particularly true in the case of sample return missions which could have lifetimes in excess of 25 years)

planetary protection guidelines lander concerns:

In summary, based on SDT-defined goals and measurement requirements, the architecture trade study presented in this report found promising Enceladus mission concepts that would provide valuable, Flagship-level, science in the two to three billion dollar ($FY07) range. The three study concepts that were developed use state of the practice technology and could be developed in time to meet the proposed launch dates. Key challenges, considerations and risks have been identified, some of which are common to any mission to Saturn and some of which are unique to missions to study Enceladus. Possible mission design trades and their effects were discussed, along with insights gleaned about remaining trade space architectures. The SDT concluded that a Flagship mission to Enceladus can achieve a significant advance in knowledge and several mission concepts are identified that merit further study.

soft landers must maintain anchoring to the surface during any sample collec tion and surface coupling for seismometer experiments soft lander concepts that operate on battery power result in short life hard impactor package needs further defi nition in several areas (e.g., battery sizing, thermal design, deployment approach, landing shock attenuation orienting in pre ferred attitude on surface, coupling to the surface, etc.)

1-8

ENCELADUS

2.0 EncEladus sciEncE Goals and objEctivEs 2.1 science Goals 2.1.1 introduction: the importance of Enceladus Enceladus (Figure 2.1.1-1) is one of the most remarkable moons in the solar system. It has captured the attention of planetary scientists since the early 1980s, when Voyager revealed Enceladus extraordinarily high albedo and its youthful and heavily modified surface (Smith et al. 1982). Ground-based observations further demonstrated that Saturns diffuse E-ring is con centrated at the orbit of Enceladus (Baum et al. 1980). The very short estimated lifetime of E-ring particles requires a constant source of replenish ment, and speculation about geyser activity on Enceladus supplying fresh material to the ring is not new (Haff et al. 1983). However, it was a series of Cassini observations in 2005 that provided de finitive proof that Enceladus is one of the very few solid bodies in the solar system that is currently geologically active. Multiple Cassini instruments detected plumes of gas and ice particles emanat ing from a series of warm fractures centered on the south pole, dubbed the tiger stripes.

EN059

Figure 2.1.1-1: Global Cassini view of Enceladus (diameter 500 km). The active south polar region is ringed by a scalloped fracture zone and includes the four parallel tiger stripe fractures in its central region. The south pole itself is marked by a red circle. Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute, PIA06254.
2-1

ENCELADUS

The plume source region on Enceladus provides a warm, chemically rich, environment, perhaps including liquid water, that is a plausible site for complex organic chemistry and even biological processes. Most importantly, fresh samples from this environment can be obtained and studied by flying past Enceladus and sampling its plume, al lowing investigation of Enceladus interior and its biological potential. No other icy satellite offers this opportunity. As the only proven example of a geologically active ice world (with the possible exception of Triton), Enceladus provides active examples of phe nomena that have been important at one time or another throughout the outer solar system. These processes, including tidal heating, cryovolcanism, and ice tectonism, can be studied as they happen on Enceladus, leading to understanding that can be applied throughout the outer solar system. Finally, because Enceladus is the source of the E-ring, as well as the extensive neutral O and OH clouds that fill the middle Saturnian magnetosphere, the moon plays a pivotal role in the Saturnian system similar in some ways to Ios role in the Jovian sys tem. For all these reasons, a mission to Enceladus would produce compelling science that is highly relevant to NASA goals (see Section 2.1.5). Prioritized science goals for a future Enceladus mission are summarized in Table 2.1.1-1 and discussed in detail below. There is no prioritiza tion within the three broad categories, and many of the goals are inter-related (Figure 2.1.1-2) and require similar measurements. Detailed flowdown from these goals to specific measurements and mission requirements is given as traceability matrix in Section 2.2.1. table 2.1.1-1: Prioritized Science Goals
Priority 1 Goal Biological Potential Composition 2 Cryovolcanism Tectonics Tidal Heating and Interior Structure 3 Saturn System Interaction Surface Processes section 2.1.2.1 2.1.3.1 2.1.3.2 2.1.3.3 2.1.3.4 2.1.4.1 2.1.4.2 Surface Interior Tidal Heating Interior Structure Cryovolcanism Composition Biological Potential System Interactions Exterior
EN060

Surface Processes Tectonics

Figure 2.1.1-2: Illustration of the overlapping and interdependent nature of the science goals discussed here. 2.1.2 Priority 1 Goals 2.1.2.1 biological Potential The search for extraterrestrial habitable environ ments is a driving force in planetary exploration, as outlined in the 2003 Decadal Survey. Because Enceladus is arguably the place in the solar system where space exploration is most likely to find a demonstrably habitable environment, evaluating its biological potential is the overarching goal of Enceladus exploration. Evaluating the habitabil ity of Enceladus involves understanding nearly all other aspects of Enceladus science, so much will be learned even if the conclusion reached is that Enceladus cannot support life as we currently un derstand it. In addition, though detection of ex tant life is perhaps unlikely, the enormous impact of such a discovery makes it worthwhile to carry some instrumentation (for instance, to measure molecular chirality) that is specifically designed for that task.
Current State of Knowledge

Despite its small relative size, there are many reasons to suspect that life might have evolved and could be supported more easily on Enceladus than on other icy moons in the outer solar system suspected of having liquid-water oceans, such as Europa or Callisto. Oxidation/reduction reactions (redox chemistry) provide the only known, and
2-2

ENCELADUS

most plausible, energy partitioning and storage systems that might drive a biosphere (see discussion in Gaidos et al. (1999)). All known biochemistry is certainly dependent on electron-transport, as evidenced by the electron transport chains that permeate all of biochemistry. In terms of supporting redox-based life, the ice-covered oceans of the outer planets need to have access to both end-members of a significant redox couple, and the further apart the end-members are chemically, the more plausible are the initial steps in the evolution of metabolism (Kirschvink and Weiss 2002). Both end-members of the redox scale are, therefore, of equal importance. At the reducing end of this scale it is not difficult to find suitable materials for driving a biosphere. Hot H2 gas in the inner portion of the ancient solar nebula led to the widespread chemical reduction of Fe and Ni-bearing dust particles, which were later accreted into progressively larger objects, and processed in the core of proto-planetary bodies. Hence, all solid bodies in the solar system are intrinsically capable of providing the reducing couple for a biosphere, assuming that a suitable geological process (like silicate volcanism) is present to mix these materials with more oxidizing counterparts. On Enceladus, the chemical composition of materials in the plume and on the surface suggests the presence of a heat source hot enough to decompose ammonia into N2 and drive reactions with hydrocarbons, implying internal temperatures on the order of 500-800 K. In turn, this suggests some form of silicate volcanism presumably driven by tidal interactions (Matson et al. 2007). A volcanic source near Enceladus south pole, and a substantial body of water in an ice-covered ocean, is also consistent with the moons shape and inferred true Polar Wander events which would have moved this effective negative mass anomaly to the bodys spin axis (Collins and Goodman 2007; Nimmo and Pappalardo 2006 ). Similar tidal processes could plausibly supply a source of reductants on Europa (Squyres et al. 1983). Gaidos et al. (1999) noted that for Europa, the availability of oxidants is the primary factor which makes life in ice-covered oceans difficult, particularly in situations where hydrothermal circulation in response to continuous volcanic activity will act to cycle and recycle the same fluid over billions of years on a time scale much faster than the ice dynamics; chemical equilibrium is reached quickly and virtually all significant chemical gradients disappear. Hand et al. (2006) have since argued that the concentration of oxidants in planetary ices may be much higher than estimated previ ously, but still falls short by three orders of magnitude when compared with the most energy-de prived ecosystem known on Earth (Parkinson et al. 2007). This is a serious problem, because organisms on Earth that are able to survive in these energy poor environments are highly adapted to exploit them, and clearly evolved from more flexi ble ancestors. Hence, it is unlikely that they would be conducive to any scenario for the origin of life in the first place (Kirschvink and Weiss 2002). Parkinson et al. (2007) note that the oxidant supply on Europa may pale in comparison with that of Enceladus. Although the production of oxidants per unit area on the surfaces of the two bodies should be roughly the same, the presence of the E-ring of Saturn may tip the balance in favor of Enceladus. Ice particles that are ejected in the plumes to form Saturns E-ring act as a chemical processor when exposed to energetic particles and UV radiation in the space environ ment. As it sweeps through its orbit, Enceladus will sweep up many of these particles again, add ing them to the oxidants formed in situ. Coupled with the presence of an active ice cycle as indi cated by the plumes themselves (Hurford et al. 2007b; Nimmo et al. 2007) this also argues for an enhanced biological potential for Enceladus in comparison with Europa. As discussed further in Section 2.1.4.1, particles in the E-ring are also responsible for reducing the background flux of lethal radiation in its portion of Saturns ring sys tem, which could well expand the habitable zone of surface-based life in extrasolar planetary sys tems with similar stressed moonlets. Finally, and most importantly, the plumes of Enceladus simplify the problem of collecting samples from the ice-covered ocean. Although the plumes themselves may or may not be directly sampling the liquid water reservoir (Nimmo et al. 2007), the warm ice needed to support these plumes when tidal forces open cracks would most likely have risen from a deeper, liquid body near the heat source at depth. Under these circum stances it is quite plausible that bits of an oceanic biosphere (even intact microorganisms) could get trapped in these ice plumes as they rise, and be expelled into orbit around Saturn. Rather than searching the Jovian system for freeze-dried fish ejected from the occasional massive impact on Europa, as suggested by Dyson (1997), detecting
2-3

ENCELADUS

freeze-dried microbes around Enceladus might actually be possible.

Major Questions

Specific questions relevant to this science goal include: Is liquid water present on Enceladus, either in a subsurface ocean, in the plume vent regions, or elsewhere? How extensive and long-lived is the water, if present, and what is its chemistry? What energy sources are available for life? And on Enceladus, one may even be able to answer the most important question of all: is life present there now?
Measurement Requirements

Almost all measurement requirements considered here are important to this overarching science goal. Most critical are measurements that probe interior conditions, particularly measurements of the plume, its source region, and its fallout on Enceladus surface, but also geophysical measurements that can establish the presence of a subsurface ocean and constrain the nature of the tidal heat engine. Some measurements in particular, however, hold the potential for direct detection of extant life. In-situ microscopic analy sis of plume particles might be able to directly image biological structures frozen within the particles, if any existed, and a surface chemistry package with the ability to measure the chirality of organic compounds would be able to measure any enantiomeric excess (i.e., a preference for one chirality over the other), which would be a strong indicator of biotic origin. 2.1.3 Priority 2 Goals 2.1.3.1 composition Telescopic and recent spacecraft observations have provided most of what is known about the composition of Enceladus surface. Composition is important to understanding the answers to sev eral major questions regarding chemistry, surface processes, interactions with the rings, the formation and subsequent evolution of the Saturn system, and the evaluation of astrobiology potential. Strategies for answering these questions involve a combination of remote and in-situ approaches.
Current state of knowledge

in Table 2.1.3-1. Water ice occurs in both crystalline and amorphous forms over much of Enceladus surface. CO2 has been unambiguously detected by Cassini VIMS both as free ice and complexed with another material (Brown et al. 2007). This host may be water ice, a mineral, or another volatile ice. Clathrates have been suggested by several authors, e.g., Kieffer et al. (2006 ); Brown et al. (2007); Kargel et al. (2007). Evidence for low concentrations of short-chain organic molecules in the ice is strong, especially near the tiger stripes (Figure 2.1.3-1, Brown et al. 2006 ), and other absorption features have been observed that have yet to be identified. Curiously, carbon monoxide and ammonia have not yet been seen, though they are predicted by several lines of rea soning, including their possible role in producing the plume through melting point depression. Silicates also have not been identified, though Enceladus high density of 1608 kg/m3 suggests a high silicate/ice ratio. table 2.1.3-1: Molecules known or predicted to be on Enceladus. Entries in lower two rows of the table have been predicted on the basis of theoretical arguments but have not been observed.
surface H2O (crystalline, amorph.) CO2 (free, trapped) Plume H2O CO2 CH4 CO or N2 NH3 C2 H 2 C3 H 8 HCN CO OH O+

Observed

Trace

Organics CO NH3 or NH3n H2O Clathrates Salts Acids Ammonium Methanol

Expected

Theorized

The current state of knowledge is summarized

Plume material is likely to fall back to the sur face on ballistic trajectories. A combination of mass spectrometry (Figure 2.1.3-2) and infrared spectroscopy reveals it to be dominated by H2O, with from one to four percent of CO2, CH4 (Waite et al. 2007), and a molecule of mass 28. This molecule is believed to be either CO or N2; most likely N2, because of the absence of CO in the Cassini FUV spectra (Waite et al. 2007; Hansen et
2-4

ENCELADUS

al. 2007). Additional materials observed in trace quantities include ammonia, acetylene, propane and HCN (Waite et al. 2007). Also expected, but not yet detected, are OH and O+ (Hansen et al. 2007), which were previously observed to occupy a torus linked to Saturns magnetosphere (Shemansky et al. 1993).
Signal (counts/IP) H2O N2 C2H2 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 0 20 40 60 Mass (Da) 80 100
EN062

CO2 CH4 C3H8

Figure 2.1.3-2: Cassini INMS mass spectrum of the Enceladus plume, taken in July 2004, showing mass peaks due to H2O, CO2, N2, CH4, and possibly C2H2 and C3H8. (Waite et al. 2006). lytic processing, or low-temperature chemistry at the surface? What are the details of the surface chemistry? How chemically heterogeneous is the surface? What are the timescales for cycling of crustal materials? Is there a chemical distinction between the materials of the optical surface layer and those below? The composition of Enceladus should also be reflected in the composition of the plume and consequently of the E-ring as well. How does this affect the ring system? What are the rates and quantities of supplied materials, and the relative abundances of different components? What are the consequences for the rest of the ring system, or for the Saturn system? The relative abundances of other materials with in the ice can dramatically affect the appearance of surface features. What are the global distributions of chemical species? How do they affect the land scape? Are sublimation-degradation processes con centrating these materials? Are ammonia, methanol, chloride salts, or some other materials depressing the melting point and enabling cryovolcanism, or is it somehow occurring in their absence? Perhaps ammonia was present in the past but has been se questered as ammonium minerals (Kargel 2006). Even small amounts of contaminants can change rheological properties by orders of magnitude, and would, for instance, affect our understanding
2-5

EN061

Figure 2.1.3-1: Near-infrared composite image of Enceladus showing the concentration of the 3.44 m C-H stretch band (red) along the south polar tiger stripes. Brown et al. (2006).
Major Questions

The presence, or absence, of various materi als on the surface or in the plume is inextricably linked with several major issues. What chemical reactions are occurring in the plume, or in the subsurface, possibly in liquid H2O? Aqueous chemistry in a subsurface liquid environment is expected to produce a number of compounds di agnostic of interior composition and circulation as well as low-temperature chemistry within the crust. Are biologically relevant materials being created? What are the physical conditions in the active regions? Is the plume composition the same everywhere, or are there variations in space and time? To what extent are materials transported to the surface altered through photolytic or radio

ENCELADUS

of apparent viscous relaxation of craters seen on Enceladus. These effects of composition can be ex ploited to probe the formation history of Enceladus, the initial complements of planet-forming materi als, and subsequent meteoritic and cometary infall, weathering and other processes. And what is the impact of these processes on the astrobiology potential? Knowledge of the sur face composition will enhance understanding of these processes and the ways in which they in fluence the creation and maintenance of viable habitats, production and transport of biogenic el ements and compounds, and energy sources that could support biological processes.
Measurement Requirements

2.1.3.2 cryovolcanism The most remarkable known aspect of Enceladus is its south polar plume activity (Figure 2.1.3-3, Hansen et al. 2006; Waite et al. 2006; Porco et al. 2006; Dougherty et al. 2006; Srama et al. 2006 ). This is the only known ex ample of active cryovolcanism in the solar sys tem (the origin of Tritons very different plumes is unknown, but they are plausibly driven by seasonal N2 frost sublimation rather than in ternal heat (Brown et al. 1990)). Understanding this remarkable phenomenon should thus be a major goal of future missions to Enceladus.

These questions are best addressed through a combination of remote and in-situ measurements that can detect both predicted and unknown compounds. From orbit, a multicolor visible im ager can quantify changes in albedo, texture, coloration, and geomorphology, enabling inter pretation of surface structures and inference of composition. The use of discrete filters can allow mapping of specific materials, such as CH4 and H2O. The real power of the remote sensing system for compositional analysis though is provided by near-IR spectroscopy, which will detect diagnostic absorption features for a number of compounds and map their abundances both locally and glob ally. Scientific return would be further enhanced by the addition of UV spectroscopy for surface and remote plume analysis (see Priority 2 goals). Information about plume composition deter mined, for instance, by in-situ gas chromatogra phy and mass spectroscopy (GCMS) can provide invaluable information on the nature of the plume source region. It can also provide valuable infor mation for constraining interpretations of the remote sensing data, by providing detailed and broad (wide mass range) organic and molecular analysis of plume particles. Analysis of dust com position, density, and particle sizes will further en hance the scientific return. Knowledge of plume composition, knowledge of surface composition from landed instruments, which can provide pre cise quantitative information on major and minor constituents at a single location, and knowledge of surface composition from orbiting instruments can all serve to provide checks on results achieved by other methods, and ultimately feed into the other scientific objectives as well.

EN063

Figure 2.1.3-3: Cassini high phase angle false-color image of the Enceladus plume, showing forwardscattering by micron-sized plume particles. From Porco et al. (2006).
Current State of Knowledge

The plumes arise from warm surface fractures (Spencer et al. 2006 ), the tiger stripes (Porco et al. 2006 ). Sublimation of warm surface ice (Spencer et al. 2006 ), boiling of near-surface liquid water (Porco et al. 2006 ), decomposition of clathrates at depth (Kieffer et al. 2006 ), and sublimation at depth due to frictional heating (Nimmo et al. 2007) have all been proposed as plume generation mechanisms. The surface frac tures radiate 6 GW (Spencer et al. 2006 ) and the plume latent heat carries away another ~1 GW, and this energy must be continually resupplied from the heat source at depth, by movement of
2-6

ENCELADUS

gas or liquid water, or (less plausibly) by conduction through the ice. The mass production rate of plume gas, crucial to understanding the plume source and Enceladus effect on broader the Saturn system, is estimated to be ~150 kg/s from stellar occultation data (Tian et al. 2006 ). This value is surprisingly high, sufficient to remove a significant fraction of Enceladus mass over the age of the solar system (Kargel et al. 2006 ). Plume ice particle production and escape rates are much more poorly constrained than the gas (Porco et al. 2006; Spahn et al. 2006 ), because of limited knowledge of plume particle sizes. A globally-distributed source of dust and gas is necessary to explain the Cassini in-situ data (Waite et al. 2006; Spahn et al. 2006 ) but whether this results entirely from sputtering and impacts or requires low-level non-polar plume activity is not yet established.
Major Questions

is also possible that extrusive cryovolcanism oc curs on Enceladus, and might explain some of the more exotic landforms seen in the Cassini images (Kargel et al. 2006 ).
Measurement Requirements

Understanding Enceladus plumes requires a combination of techniques. Remote sensing is necessary: high-resolution imaging of the plume vent morphology and the plumes themselves, de tailed near-infrared mapping of the composition of the plume fallout and its spatial distribution, and thermal mapping of near-vent temperatures. Tidal flexing and radar sounding measurements will help to understand local heating and crustal structure near the vents. Measurements of plume chemistry and plume particle morphology will reveal much about the source region and will constrain resurfacing rates. 2.1.3.3 tectonics Understanding the complex tectonic evolu tion of Enceladus would be a primary goal of an Enceladus mission. Tectonic features dominate the surface, and have many intriguing similarities to, and differences from, tectonic features found on other icy satellites.
Current State of Knowledge

The plume generation mechanism, and how energy is delivered to the near-surface of Enceladus to supply the plumes, is not understood. Understanding this mechanism, and thus understanding the physical and chemical conditions in the plume sources, is of great importance. Many uncertainties remain in understanding the plume gas and particle production, es cape, and resurfacing rates. Particle masses and size distributions are an important constraint on plume mechanisms (Porco et al. 2006 ), and are crucial to understanding mass loss, and supply of material to the E-ring. Much of the dust, and probably some of the gas, falls back to the surface and is probably a major resurfacing mechanism, but rates and spatial distribution of this resurfacing are unknown. The detailed chemistry of the plumes is also not yet known. The temporal variability of the plumes is unknown. There is a suggestion that they might be controlled by daily tidal changes (Hurford et al. 2007b), and longer-term variability is also likely. It is also unknown whether low-level plume or other cryovolcanic activity occurs at locations other than the south polar terrain. Other forms of cryovolcanism may occur on Enceladus, but details are unknown. For instance, the presence of large boulders near the tiger stripes (Figure 2.1.4-3) may imply occasional episodes of much more violent activity than have been seen by Cassini. It

Cassini images have revolutionized the Voyager view of this satellite (cf., Morrison et al. 1986; Kargel and Pozio, 1996), demonstrating, for instance, that smooth terrain is pervasively tectonized (Helfenstein et al. 2005; Rathbun et al. 2005). Figure 2.1.3-4 shows that diverse features crosscut the surface, revealing an intricate history. Sev eral different tectonic processes seem to have been at work. The sinuous chain of scarps that bound the south polar terrain at a latitude of ~55 S ap pear to have formed in response to compressional forces, while north-trending fracture zones that radiate from peculiar Y-shaped cusps and interrupt the chain of scarps appear to be extensional (Helfenstein et al. 2006a; Porco et al. 2006). Shear offsets along pre-existing rifts are also observed near the transition between these contractional and extensional features. The origin of tiger stripes, a system of parallel rifts through which cryovolcanic plumes erupt, is currently unclear. While the south polar terrain is a focus of pervasive active tectonism, other regions are less so
2-7

ENCELADUS

(e.g., the cratered north polar region). Analysis of the relationship between impact craters and tectonic features (Barnash et al. 2006; Bray et al. 2007) indicates that the tectonism has persisted through time. Furthermore, fossil terrains else where on Enceladus reminiscent of the south po lar terrain suggest multiple resurfacing episodes throughout the satellites history (Helfenstein et al. 2006b; Schenk and Seddio, 2006 ).
Major Questions

Several questions motivate this science goal. A first question concerns the nature of the tectonic features, since whether they formed from horizon tal extension, contraction, or shearing of the sur face bears directly on the evolution of Enceladus. An Enceladus mission would also seek to resolve why tectonic patterns vary so widely across the surface and how tectonism has changed over time. It is also important to understand the stresses that have given rise to tectonic features, for in stance convection within the icy mantle, possibly involving a regime similar to plate tectonics on Earth (e.g., Helfenstein et al. 2006a), can induce tractions on the surface; thus, unraveling the tec tonics may illuminate these convective motions. Finally, Enceladus may hold the key to under standing tectonic processes on other icy satellites. Indeed, many tectonic features on Enceladus may be analogous to features observed on other icy satellites such as Europa (Figure 2.1.3-5), Gany mede, and perhaps Titan. Thus, study of the tec tonics of Enceladus, which is probably currently active, can be used as a natural laboratory to in vestigate the response to stresses of the other icy surfaces of the outer solar system.
Measurement Requirements

EN064

Figure 2.1.3-4: Mosaic of Cassini ISS images, displaying several different tectonic styles that indicate a complex tectonic history. South is towards the right. The radius of Enceladus is 251 km. Courtesy NASA/ JPL-Caltech (image # PIA06191). The chain of scarps bounding the south polar terrain, as well as the northward-radiating frac ture zones, may be the product of a change in Enceladuss global figure, possibly associated with a wholesale reorientation of the satellite (i.e., polar wander). The correspondence of the south polar terrain with a rotational pole is not likely coinci dental, and models that seek to explain the south polar activity (Nimmo and Pappalardo, 2006; Collins and Goodman, 2007) often incorporate a long-wavelength low in the equipotential sur face of Enceladus that can drive polar wander. Last, the shape of the satellite is changed on a daily basis because of tidal working. The apparent morphology and orientation of at least one tiger stripe could be a result (Hurford et al. 2007a), and tidal flexing may play an important role in creating the vapor plumes issuing from the tiger stripes, in general (Nimmo et al. 2007; Hurford et al. 2007b).

High-resolution images are vital for interpret ing the individual features and the forces that led to their formation. Near-complete coverage of high-resolution (~10 m/pixel) imaging will pro vide a detailed tectonic framework, and morphol ogy of individual features, that is essential for understanding Enceladus tectonism. Stereo im aging of selected features will allow quantitative modeling of their evolution. Radar sounding can investigate the subsurface expressions of tectonic features, providing important constraints on their nature. Measurements of tidal flexing, and local gravity and topography, will aid understanding of the stresses driving tectonic activity. It is also pos sible that motions along active tectonic features could be detected by repeated very precise topo graphic measurements, for instance using laser altimetry, or by seismometry from the surface. 2.1.3.4 tidal Heating and interior structure Enceladus ranks alongside Io and possibly Triton as one of the few geodynamically active
2-8

ENCELADUS

Enceladus Europa

5 km

5 km
EN065 EN065

Figure 2.1.3-5: Comparison of tectonic features on Enceladus (left) and Europa (right) at similar scales. Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute/Arizona State University (PIA06251, PIA00849). satellites in the solar system. Understanding the tidal heating engine that almost certainly drives this activity, and the interior structure that both controls and is controlled by the tidal heating, is vital to understanding Enceladus as a whole.
Current State of Knowledge
250 km Ice Shell Ocean? Ocean?
3

Ice Shell

Enceladus mean density is 1608.3 kg/m and its mean radius 252.1 km (Thomas et al. 2007). The interior structure of Enceladus is not known, however, calculations suggest that it is likely dif ferentiated with an icy shell ~90 km thick that surrounds a silicate core that could either be hy drated or dehydrated (Figure 2.1.3-6) (Barr and McKinnon 2007; Schubert et al. 2007). It is not known whether Enceladus has a sub surface ocean. If a global ocean exists, it would decouple the ice shell from the underlying rocky core, permitting tidal dissipation and tidally driv en tectonics similar to Europa. An ocean, or even isolated pockets of subsurface liquid water could conceivably provide a habitat for primitive life. The heat flux from Enceladus south polar re gion is between 3 to 7 GW based on CIRS obser vations (Figure 2.1.3-7, Spencer et al. 2006 ); the global heat flux could be ~10 times as high. Ra diogenic heating from Enceladus rocky compo nent supplies only ~0.3 GW at present (Schubert et al. 2007), so tidal dissipation is likely supply ing the rest of the heat. The exact mechanism by which tidal deformation in Enceladus results in

160 km
11 MPa

Hydrated Rock Anhydrous Rock

170 km 10 MPa

60 MPa

50 MPa

EN066

Figure 2.1.3-6: Interior structure of a differentiated Enceladus (Barr and McKinnon 2007 ), assuming solarcomposition rock (Mueller and McKinnon 1988), a pure ice shell, and an updated iron abundance (Lodders 2003). An internal liquid layer may exist at the base of the ice shell. internal heating is not known; it is possible that dissipation occurs within the deep interior of a warm convecting satellite (as envisioned by Ross and Schubert (1989)) but also plausible that dissi pation occurs close to its surface on shallow fault
2-9

ENCELADUS
zones (Nimmo et al. 2007). Regardless of the method of dissipation, Enceladus must be warm and/or partially molten to experience significant tidal flexing and dissipation the mode of initial warming to kick start tidal heating is not known (though 26 Al heating has been suggested as one possible mechanism (Castillo et al. 2006 )). If tidal dissipation is localized to the south pole, it could provide enough heat to maintain a local subsurface sea, topographic low, and to drive cryovolcanism (e.g., Collins and Goodman 2007). To date, measurements of Enceladus tidal heat flux are the only quantitative constraints on the amount of tidal dissipation and its spatial localization in any icy satellite. Tidal dissipation occurs in Enceladus because the satellite does mechanical work against its own internal rigidity. The amount of tidal dissipation therefore depends on the amount of deformation occurring within Enceladus over its daily orbital cycle.
Major Questions

Understanding the interior structure of Enceladus, and the heat engine that drives its activity, is a key goal of a flagship mission. It is important to constrain the extent of differentiation, the presence of an ocean, and the modes of heat transport and generation in the interior. For this it is necessary to understand the moons heat flow, the internal density and thermal structure and ice shell thickness, and the location and distribution of liquid water.
Measurement Requirements

Temperature, Kelvin 60 65 70 75 80 85

EN067

Figure 2.1.3-7: False-color image of 12-16 micron color temperatures on Enceladus, from the Cassini Composite Infrared Spectrometer (CIRS) showing the heat radiation from the warm tiger stripes in the south polar region. Peak temperatures are much warmer, at least 145 K, than the low-resolution averages shown here. The dashed line is the terminator. (Spencer et al. 2006). Evidence that high heat flux has been present for long periods comes from the observations that many ancient impact craters on Enceladus show clear evidence of viscous relaxation due to locally elevated near-surface temperatures at some time in the bodys past (Passey 1983; Smith et al. 2007; Schenk and Moore 2007).

Determination of Enceladus static gravity field to sufficient degree and order to look for subsurface density anomalies, and with proper geometry to independently measure J2 and C22 (see McKinnon 1997 for discussion); measurement of its magnetic field (both intrinsic and inductive); and seismic sounding, will provide essential constraints on interior structure. In addition, measurements of Enceladus time-variable potential and surface deformation can provide estimates of its Love numbers, h2 and k 2, which can be used to constrain its interior structure (for example to help determine the presence of an ocean), and, serve as first steps toward modeling tidal dissipation because they relate tidal deformation to the applied tidal potential. The determination of the subsurface thermal structure using some sort of sounding technique (such as seismology or icepenetrating radar) would provide valuable information about the modes of tidal dissipation and hold the key to understanding tidal dissipation in other satellites, and thermal infrared measurements of surface temperature, coupled with bolometric albedo measurements to understand and remove the absorbed sunlight contribution, will constrain global and local heat flow. Such measurements would also provide valuable constraints on the thickness of Enceladus lithosphere, which affects its modes of resurfacing and surface/subsurface material exchange. Measurements of the

2-10

ENCELADUS

topography of viscously relaxed impact craters will provide important constraints on the time history and spatial distribution of heat flow throughout Enceladus history. 2.1.4 Priority 3 Goals 2.1.4.1 saturn system interaction In addition to Enceladus being an interesting body in its own right, it has a major influence on the rest of the Saturn system. In turn, the larger Saturn system influences Enceladus in many ways. The processes involved are particularly interesting because they may affect both Enceladus ability to support life, and the habitability of hypothetical extrasolar planetary systems that may contain Enceladus-like worlds.
Current State of Knowledge

Since Enceladus orbits deep in Saturns magnetosphere, the impact of energetic trapped particles on Enceladus surface is an important process. Particle precipitation contributes to the aging and chemistry of Enceladus surface layer through sputtering and radiolysis. While such processes are not unique to Enceladus, the interpretation of surface materials to determine the age of various surface regions on Enceladus depends on an understanding of such surface processes. For this reason, it is important to characterize the radiation environment of Enceladus in any mission that seeks to understand the resurfacing of the moon by its plume material. Micrometeorite gardening, either from interplanetary dust particles or returning E-ring particles, is also a potentially important process. Of perhaps even broader interest, is the role Enceladus plays in modifying the inner magnetospheric environment of Saturn. Saturns magnetosphere, although intermediate in size and field strength between the magnetospheres of Jupiter and Earth, traps much less intense energetic ion and electron populations than either Jupiter or Earth. Much of this difference can be attributed to Enceladus, and the relatively dense cold gas cloud it produces. This cloud of water products, ejected from Enceladus south polar rift features, is not gravitationally bound to Enceladus precisely because Enceladus is so small. Spreading out over the inner magnetosphere of Saturn, the gas removes essentially all of the energetic ions between six and three Saturn radii (R s) via charge

exchange, and degrades the energy of the ener getic electron population throughout the same region through coulomb collisions. This results in a radiation environment three orders of mag nitude less intense than that of Earth, and even weaker relative to Jupiter. And that relatively be nign environment extends to the moons Mimas, Tethys, and Dione, and to a lesser degree, Rhea. Thus, Enceladus, at 500-km diameter, completely dominates the radiation environment throughout the inner Saturnian magnetosphere. If a process like this is at all common through out the universe, it may be a significant factor in the probability of encountering habitable zones about giant planets such as Saturn where radia tion might otherwise preclude life (at least at the surface of moon, as, for example, at Jupiter), or alternately, might provide energy for subsurface life (Chyba 2000). Investigation of Enceladus interaction with the magnetosphere is, therefore, of interest to the entire question of the evolution of life throughout the universe. In addition to gas, Enceladus plumes also contain very fine dust particles. Many of these particles are ejected with sufficient velocity that they, too, escape Enceladus weak gravity field and spread to form the tenuous E-ring about Saturn (Figure 2.1.4-1). The E-ring is dominated by ~1 micron ice particles, with some larger ones, though the size/frequency distribution is not well known. The E-ring is typically less than a Saturn radius in thickness, and extends from about three to ten R s, with peak density near its source at the orbit of Enceladus. Particles in the E-ring are composed of ejecta from the plumes, either directly in solid state, or flash-frozen as they exit. In either case, they carry with them material from Enceladus interior in solid form, so their composition is of great scientific interest. These dust particles also deposit on the surfaces of the other icy moons, transferring mass from Enceladus to those moons, and modifying their surface albedo and texture.
Major Questions

Important questions that need to be addressed include the following. Has the influence of Enceladus on the magnetospheric environment been continuous over the evolution of the Saturn system, or is it relatively recent? Is the mechanism behind the plumes and the support of the cold gas cloud in the magnetosphere unique to Enceladus, or is it a mechanism that can be expected to recur

2-11

ENCELADUS

2.1.4.2 surface Processes The term surface process as used here refers to any physical or geological mechanism that affects the composition, optical behavior, mechanical structure, morphology, or distribution of geologi cal materials exposed at the surface of Enceladus. Both exogenic and endogenic processes shaped the visible surface of Enceladus, but this body is unique among the airless icy satellites because of the unusually strong role played by endogenic processes such as active cryovolcanism, wide spread tectonism (see Section 2.1.3.3), and per haps attendant seismic shaking.
Current State of Knowledge

Figure 2.1.4-1: Very high phase angle Cassini image showing the complex interaction between Enceladus (the central black dot), its plume (the bright streak below Enceladus), and the E-ring (the diffuse arc). Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute (PIA08321). regularly in other solar systems? What is the para metric dependence of the gas cloud on such vari ables as solar UV, plasma electron temperature, dipole tilt, solar cycle, etc.? What is the role of the E-ring dust in modifying the plasma and en ergetic particle environment of Enceladus and the other icy moons? What role does sputtering from satellite surfaces play in amplifying the density of the water products cloud? What controls the structure of the E-ring, and the dynamics, and lifetime of the particles that comprise it?
Measurement Requirements

EN068

Ballistic fallout from cryovolcanic plume erup tions at the south pole emplaces fresh new par ticulate materials on Enceladus surface. Voyager and Cassini images, as well as VIMS multispec tral data, show that the photometric and color properties of the south polar region are distinct from other regions of Enceladus (Figure 2.1.4-2, Buratti et al. 1990; Brown et al. 2006; Porco et al. 2006 ). Nearly all of the subtle color and al bedo variations are believed to be the result of differences in the effective grain sizes of ice or micro-texture of icy surface deposits. It is pos sible that multiple episodes of volcanism extend ing to different locales have occurred throughout Enceladus history (cf., Helfenstein et al. 2007; Schenk and Seddio 2006 ) and that accumulation of icy volcanic deposits has produced a layered near-surface structure. It might be expected that particulate icy fallout should heavily mantle south polar terrains. How ever, the highest-resolution Cassini image ob tained near the south pole (Figure 2.1.4-3) shows a bizarre terrain dissected by ubiquitous fractures and cracks and widespread cover by large round ed ice boulders. The boulders appear to be free of any particulate blanketing, and there are relatively few flat, topographically low, areas where smooth particulate materials have accumulated. Settling and downslope redistribution of particulates may be enhanced at the south pole due to intense seis mic shaking associated with plume eruptions (cf., Hurford et al. 2007b; Nimmo et al. 2007). The mechanical structure and optical proper ties of surface materials on Enceladus are likely altered by re-accretion of E-ring particles. On a

Measurements needed to address these ques tions include magnetic field, energetic particles and plasma (electrons, ions, composition), and neutral gas density and composition. Measure ments of the size and spatial distribution of E-ring particles, using in-situ or remote observa tions, are also important. These measurements are needed throughout the inner magnetosphere, both close to Enceladus and in the Enceladus to Titan magnetospheric regions. Measurements of the Enceladus plume itself, in particular the na ture and fluxes of the escaping dust and gas, are also important for this goal.

2-12

ENCELADUS

EN069

EN070

Figure 2.1.4-2: Low phase (12) clear-filter ISS Narrow Angle Camera image of Enceladus (adapted from Porco et al. 2006) showing photometric behavior differences between the south polar terrains (bottom of disk) where tiger stripes contrast with adjacent bright terrain, and other regions of Enceladus where regional photometric contrasts are muted. Differences in the optical and physical properties of surface materials are implied. Credit: NASA /JPL /Space Science Institute nst (PIA08980). microscopic scale, E-ring bombardment prob ably etches and ablates exposed surface materi als, contributing to the extraordinarily high al bedos and peculiar light-scattering behaviors of Enceladus and its neighboring satellites (Buratti 1988; Verbiscer and Veverka 1994; Verbiscer et al. 2007). Surface sputtering and radiolysis from magne tospheric bombardment of Enceladus surface is potentially important in modifying the surface chemistry and texture, and in providing a source of chemical energy for the interior. Endogenic heat flow might also alter the lithol ogy and structure of surface materials, by causing sintering at relatively shallow depths. In addition, processes more typical of those on other satel lites, such as impact cratering, cosmic ray and micrometeorite bombardment must be occurring on Enceladus as it does other airless icy satellites throughout the Saturnian system and indeed throughout the solar system.

Figure 2.1.4-3: Highest resolution (4m/pixel) Cassini clear-filter NAC image ever obtained of Enceladus surface. The image was obtained adjacent to the tiger stripes at the south pole and exhibits dense cover by peculiar rounded ice boulders (from Porco et al., 2006). With the discovery of possible activity on Dione and Tethys (Burch et al. 2007), the ac tivity on Enceladus can be seen as the best-de veloped example of a process that may not have reached full fruition on these other moons. Thus, understanding present-day surface processes on Enceladus is likely to prove key to understanding the evolution of surfaces elsewhere in the outer solar system.
Major Questions

It is important to understand the relative roles of plume and E-ring fallout, sputtering, microme teorite bombardment, photolysis and radiolysis in determining the surface structure and chemistry of Enceladus.
Measurement Requirements

Surface processes can be understood partly by direct observations of the surface, including high-resolution (10 m/pixel or better) imaging from orbit (for instance it is important to under stand the extent to which the bouldered terrain like that in Figure 2.1.4-3 is distributed over the

2-13

ENCELADUS

surface of Enceladus) and from the surface, and remote sensing of surface composition. Measure ments of the impacting charged particle flux, and the characteristics of the plume particles and gas that impact the surface, are also important, as are in-situ measurements of surface chemistry from a lander. 2.1.5 Relationship to nasa strategic Goals and decadal survey Goals The most comprehensive recent articulation of the planetary communitys scientific priori ties is given in the Decadal Survey (NRC 2003). The Decadal Survey was written prior to the re cent Cassini discoveries at Enceladus, and thus Enceladus is rarely mentioned. Now, with the discovery of geological activity, Enceladus can be seen as an ideal place to address a large fraction of the Decadal Surveys questions. The potential habitability of Enceladus, coupled with the ability to sample volatile and organic materials sourced from the sub-surface, make it particularly relevant to Decadal Survey goals. The four crosscutting themes of the Decadal Survey are: The first bil lion years of solar system history; volatiles and organics: the stuff of life; the origin and evolution of habitable worlds; and processes: how planetary systems work. A mission to Enceladus will address all these themes, in particular the second, third, and fourth, as summarized in Table 2.1.5-1 and described in more detail below. 2.1.5.1 the First billion Years of solar system History The present-day interior and thermal structure of Enceladus will help to decipher the processes controlling the initial stages of satellite forma tion. For instance, it is clear that live 26Al, if pres ent, will have had a significant effect on the initial thermal structure of the body (e.g., Castillo-Rogez et al. 2007). This structure, in turn, is likely to have controlled the subsequent orbital and ther mal evolution of the satellite, which are coupled via the effects of tidal dissipation (cf., Showman et al. 1997). 2.1.5.2 volatiles and organics: the stuff of life Enceladus is one of the very few places in the solar system where volatiles and organics from the interior can potentially be sampled by spacecraft. As such, it is of central importance to this particu lar theme. The history of volatile compounds may be investigated by direct measurement of isotopic ratios (e.g., D/H, N, C) of plume or surface vola tile material. Such measurements provide strong constraints on these volatiles provenance and mode of formation (e.g., Niemann et al. 2005 for Titan). The nature and evolution of organic ma terials can be studied using similar techniques: acetylene and propane have already been detected in the vapor plume (Waite et al. 2006 ), but wheth er more complex molecules are present, and what processes may have affected them during their ascent from the interior, are currently unknown. Finally, Enceladus is a superb example of how global mechanisms affect volatile evolution. For example, the current plume mass flux, presumably tidally driven, would result in the loss of a 10-m thick shell of ice every million years. Similarly, it is possible that tidal heating in the silicate interior controls the composition of volatile materials seen in the plumes (Matson et al. 2007). There is, thus, a direct link between interior processes and struc ture, and volatile evolution. 2.1.5.3 the origin and Evolution of Habitable Worlds Enceladus has many of the requirements for habitability (Mix et al. 2006 ): simple organic compounds; an abundant energy source (tidal dissipation); and quite likely a subsurface ocean (Porco et al. 2006 ). It is thus an excellent place to determine what planetary processes are responsi ble for sustaining habitable worlds. In particular, determining the presence or absence of an ocean, either through magnetometry (e.g., Zimmer et al. 2000), seismometry (e.g., Panning et al. 2006 ), or tidal deformation studies (e.g., Wahr et al. 2006 ), is of fundamental importance for this science theme. As noted in Section 2.1.4.1, Enceladus role in damping radiation in the Saturn system also demonstrates a process that may be an im portant influence on the habitability of other planetary systems. Perhaps even more exciting, Enceladus is perhaps one of only two places in the solar system (the other being Mars) where an answer can be given to the question: does (or did) life exist beyond Earth? Detection of, for instance, chiral molecules or pronounced isoto pic anomalies in samples from the surface or the vapor plume would be strong evidence for life (e.g., Mix et al. 2006 ).

2-14

ENCELADUS

table 2.1.5-1: Mapping of Science Goals to Decadal Survey Themes.

biological Potential tidal Heating & internal structure composition cryovolcanism tectonics surface Processes saturn system interaction

the First billion Years of solar system History 1. Initial processes X X

volatiles and organics: the stuff of life 4. History of volatiles 5. Nature and evolution of organics 6. Mechanisms of volatile evolution X X X X X X X X X X X X X

the origin and Evolution of Habitable Worlds 7. Processes responsible for habitability 8. Life beyond Earth? X X X X X X

Processes: How Planetary systems Work 11. Contemporary processes X X X X X

2.1.5.4 Processes: How Planetary systems Work Enceladus is a particularly good example of how different planetary processes have operated and interacted to shape its present-day characteristics. For instance, as alluded to above, there is a com plicated feedback between orbital, thermal and volatile evolution. Similarly, the magnetospheric and particle environment around Enceladus are both intimately affected by the behavior of the plumes (Dougherty et al. 2006 ). Cryovolcanism, and probably tectonism, important planetary processes, can be studied on Enceladus as they happen, and it is an excellent location for study of other important geological processes, such as viscous relaxation.

2.1.5.5 Relevance to decadal survey large satellites sub-Panel themes In addition to the overarching themes of the Decadal Survey (NRC 2003), the Large Satellites sub-panel also identified four science themes and four high-priority scientific questions for satellite science. As shown in Table 2.1.5-2, these themes and questions can also be comprehensively ad dressed by an Enceladus mission. A mission to Enceladus is thus capable of ad dressing all four themes identified by the 2003 Decadal Survey, with particular emphasis on those focusing on volatiles, organics and habit ability. These latter topics in particular are also relevant to NASAs 2007 Science Plan, which among other questions seeks to answer:

2-15

ENCELADUS

table 2.1.5-2: Relevance of Key Science Questions to the Decadal Survey Large Satellites Goals.
biological Potential themes Origin/evolution satellite systems Origin/evolution water-rich environments Exploring organic-rich environments Understanding dynamic planetary processes High-Priority Questions Is there extant life? Organic chemistry in extreme environments How common are liquid water layers? How does tidal heating affect satellite evolution? X X X X X X X X X X X X tidal Heating and internal structure composition cryovolcanism tectonics surface processes saturn system interaction

W hat are the characteristics of the solar system stated that Enceladus is a prime target for future solar system exploration. This document also that led to the origin of life? identified a Titan/Enceladus explorer as one of the id life evolve elsewhere in the solar system three highest-priority Flagship-class missions. D than Earth? Finally, an Enceladus mission is consistent with ow did the solar system evolve to its current NASAs highest-level goals as laid out in the 2004 H Vision for Space Exploration. Such a mission will diverse state? explore . . . other bodies to search for evidence The 2006 Science Roadmap highlighted the of life [and] to understand the history of the solar discovery of water vapor plumes on Enceladus as system. a key development since the publication of the 2003 Decadal Survey. It noted that the discover In summary, a mission to Enceladus is fully ies at Enceladus are pertinent to all four major consistent with NASAs current goals, addresses science themes pertinent to large satellites, as rec all four of the high-level questions posed by the ommended by the Decadal Survey (p. 50) and 2003 Decadal Survey, and is targeted at a body
2-16

ENCELADUS

that is not only potentially habitable but also pro vides readily accessible samples of the volatile and organic materials sourced from its interior. 2.2 Measurement Requirements overview The measurement requirements discussed for each science goal in Section 2.1 can be ad dressed by specific instruments aboard specific types of mission, though many other types of in struments may also be used to meet those goals. Table 2.2.1-1, shows, in detail, the traceability from Enceladus science goals to measurements, suggested instrument types, and missions. There is much overlap between the measurements and instruments (for instance, understanding Enceladus biological potential involves measur ing the location and distribution of liquid water, which is also a requirement for understanding the tidal heating and interior structure), and crossreferences are shown when possible, to avoid un necessary duplication. 2.2.1 traceability Matrix The traceability Table 2.2.1-1. matrix is shown in rently-planned extended mission in mid-2010 (Table 2.2.2-1). Cassini carries a large suite of optical remote sensing and fields and particles instruments (see Cassini instrumentation articles in Space Science Reviews, 115, 2005). Those most relevant to Enceladus include UV, visible, near-IR and thermal IR remote sensing instruments, a mass spectrometer, dust analyzer, and plasma spec trometers, a magnetometer, and a radio science experiment. Much will be learned from these instruments about Enceladus during the remain ing flybys. However, Cassini is limited in several important respects. First, the configuration of the spacecraft allows optimization of each flyby for only a few measurement goals, as shown in Table 2.2.2-1. If remote sensing instruments are pointed at Enceladus near closest approach, the dust analyzer, mass spectrometer, and plasma in struments obtain compromised data, and gravity measurements, which require pointing the highgain antenna at Earth, are not generally compat ible with either remote sensing or in-situ measure ments. As a result, only two or three flybys are available for each type of measurement. Another limitation is the lack of dust shielding on Cassini, which was not designed to fly through a dusty plume environment. Impact with a single particle larger than 1 mm in size could be fatal to the spacecraft, and the presence of such par ticles in the plume cannot yet be robustly ruled out. Though flybys at 21 km altitude are currently

2.2.2 cassinis ability to Make these Measurements Enceladus remains a major science target for the Cassini mission, and eight more flybys of Enceladus are planned before the end of the curtable 2.2.2-1: Cassini Enceladus flybys, 2008 onwards
date 12-Mar-08 11-Aug-08 9-Oct-08 31-Oct-08 2-Nov-09 21-Nov-09 28-Apr-10 18-May-10 orbit 61 80 88 91 120 121 130 131 speed, km/s 14.3 17.7 17.7 17.7 7.7 7.7 6.5 7 altitude, km 27 21 21 196 96 1560 96 246

orbit inclination High High High High Low Low Low Low 2-17

Planned close-encounter science emphasis In-situ plume sampling In-situ plume sampling or S. pole remote sensing In-situ plume sampling or S. pole remote sensing or UV stellar occultation S. pole remote sensing In-situ plume sampling S. pole remote sensing S. pole gravity S. pole gravity or plume solar occultation

Table 2.2.1-1: Traceability Matrix

Science Objective Measurement Objective(s) Measurement Requirement Magnetic field measurements to 0.1 nT Surface magnetic field measurements to 0.1 nT Mission Requirement Polar orbits ideal Lifetime of several Enceladus days, continuous operation. Enceladus orbital knowledge to 10-m precision; also possible with multiple (~10) flybys with range <1000 km. Simultaneous altimetry and gravity observations. Desire 10-m spot size; 100-m pointing accuracy, laser ranges to Laser Altimeter h2 Love number to 0.1; tidal displacements to 1 m; Altimetry profiles with resolutions 10-m horizontal and 1000 km; multi-beam for crossover analysis (require crossovers at different points in orbit relative to periapse). ~180 Location and orbits required for global topography with 1 resolution. 0.1-m vertical resolution distribution of liquid Determine range to 1-2 transponders; for single transponder, orbital knowledge to 1-m precision required. Lifetime of water Radio Science several Enceladus days required. -3. k 2 Love number to 0.01; Degree-2 gravity coefficients to 10 Lower priority: Gravity profiles to 1 mgal at Multiple flybys w/ simultaneous altimetry and gravity measurements. Orbiter w/ both polar and equatorial passes. Radio Science surface, with ~20-40 km resolution Seismic measurements with displacement sensitivity better than 1 mm at periods 0.001- 0.1 Hz. Short Lifetime of several Enceladus days. One location is sufficient for normal mode measurement of shell thickness, two at Seismometer period sensitivity better than 0.1 micron/s at frequencies up to 100 Hz different locations are preferred for more detailed interior structure determination South polar surface temperature maps, 100-m spatial resolution, 0.5 K temperature sensitivity at 60 K High inclination Enceladus orbits for polar passes, or multiple south polar flybys Thermal Mapper High inclination Enceladus orbits, or multiple south polar flybys. Variable altitude for very-high-resolution (2 m/pix) South polar daytime imaging coverage, 4 wavelengths (0.35, 0.56, 0.8, 1.0 microns), 10-m spatial imaging of selected areas. Subsolar latitude < -10 during some of the prime mission, for south polar viewing. Lower Visible Camera resolution. Plume imaging at phase angles from 130 to 175 with 100-m spatial resolution. Lower Physical conditions in priority: Local stereo topography with 30-m horizontal and 10-m vertical resolution. priority: Multiple looks at same location from different angles required for stereo. the active regions Image subsurface ice in vents to 250 K isotherm (~6 km) with 100-m vertical resolution 100-m pointing accuracy Sounding Radar South polar daytime coverage, 1 - 5 microns, 0.002-micron spectral resolution, 100-m spatial High inclination Enceladus orbits, or multiple south polar flybys. Subsolar latitude < -10 during some of the prime Near Infrared Mapper resolution. mission, for south polar viewing Plume stellar occultations probing water vapor abundance (and other species) to 1000 km altitude with multiple geometries. Spectral range 0.08 - 0.38 microns, 0.0002-micron spectral resolution at selected 12 stellar occultations, pointing flexibility (i.e., not nadir pointed all the time) FUV Spectrometer wavelengths Biological 1 - 5 micron reflectance spectra of the plume Pointing flexibility Near Infrared Mapper Potential Neutral Gas Spectrometer or Neutral gas composition (plus, isotopes), temperature, velocity distribution, density distribution Polar Orbiter or multiple flybys through plume Plume Chemistry GCMS Dust Analyzer (high-speed collection) Dust elemental and molecular composition Polar Orbiter or multiple flybys through plume Dust Analyzer (low-speed collection) Orbiter allowing global coverage with some high inclination orbits, or 15 flybys at each of at least three different Near Infrared Mapper Global daytime coverage at 1 - 5 microns, 0.002-micron spectral resolution, 100-m spatial resolution. subsolar longitudes. Subsolar latitude < -10 during some of the prime mission for south polar viewing Global distribution of chemical species Global daytime imaging coverage at 4 wavelengths (0.35, 0.56, 0.8, 1.0 microns) to map H 2O grain size Orbiter allowing global coverage with some high inclination orbits, or 15 flybys at each of at least three different Visible Mapping Camera and visible/NUV absorbers, 10-m resolution. subsolar longitudes. Subsolar latitude < -10 during some of the prime mission for south polar viewing. 1 - 5 micron mapping of landing site for context, ~.002-micron spectral resolution, 10-mrad angular At least 1 meter above the surface Near-IR Spectrometer resolution Micro-capillary electrophoresis Distribution and abundance of primary amines, including amino acids, nucleobases, amino sugars, to Soft lander with solid ice sample acquisition capability with laser induced fluorescence sub part-per-billion detection limits, mass up to 550 a.m.u., enantiomeric abundances to 5% Detailed surface detection and ToF-MS chemistry Carbon, hydrogen isotope measurements Soft lander with solid ice sample acquisition capability Tunable Laser Spectrometer Identify oxidants in surface ice (e.g., H 2O 2, superoxide, etc.) Soft lander with solid ice sample acquisition capability Surface Ice Oxidant detector Laser Desorption Mass Refractory organic component (e.g., PAHs) Soft lander with solid ice sample acquisition capability Spectrometer Biogenic structures in Plume grain morphology with 0.1-micron spatial resolution Low-speed data collection or surface sampling Dust Micro-analyzer the plume particles? Plume Chemistry Same measurements as for Biological Potential/Plume chemistry science goal Global distribution of Same measurements as for Biological Potential/Global distribution of chemical species science goal Composition chemical species Detailed surface Same measurements as for Biological Potential/Detailed surface chemistry science goal chemistry Global surface temperature maps, both day and night, 100-m spatial resolution, temperature sensitivity Orbiter allowing global coverage with some high inclination orbits, or 10 flybys at each of at least three different Thermal Mapper Global distribution of 0.5 K at 60 K subsolar longitudes active cryovolcanism Global search for plume activity High phase angle global imaging at a large range of geometries Visible Camera Nature of the Plume Same measurements as Biological potential/Physical conditions in the active regions science goals Source Plume imaging at 3 wavelengths (0.35, 0.55, 0.9 microns), up to 165 phase. Need to be able to point at Enceladus from most locations in the spacecraft orbit, at phase angles up to 165. Visible Camera Plume grain morphology with 0.1 micron spatial resolution Low-speed data collection Dust Micro-analyzer Cryovolcanism Dust size and spatial distribution over 0.1 - 100 micron, dust velocity distribution Polar Orbiter or multiple flybys through plume Dust Analyzer Plume physical Neutral Gas Spectrometer or characteristics Neutral gas temperature, velocity distribution, density distribution Polar Orbiter or multiple flybys through plume GCMS Plume stellar occultations probing water vapor abundance and spatial distribution to 1000 km altitude 12 stellar occultations, pointing flexibility (i.e., not nadir pointed all the time) FUV Spectrometer with multiple geometries. Plume Chemistry Same measurements as for Biological Potential/Plume chemistry science goal Suggested Instrument Type Magnetometer Magnetometer Mission Type Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Hard or Soft Lander Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Hard or Soft Lander + Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Hard or Soft Lander Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Hard or Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Enceladus Orbiter or Soft Lander Priority 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1

Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter

1 2 2 1 1 1 2

2-18

Table 2.2.1-1: Traceability Matrix (Continued)

Science Objective Measurement Objective(s) Measurement Requirement Mission Requirement Suggested Instrument Type Mission Type Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Priority 1 1 2 Orbiter allowing global coverage with some high inclination orbits, or 15 flybys at each of at least three different Global daytime imaging coverage, 10-m spatial resolution. Lower priority: Local stereo topography with subsolar longitudes. Variable altitude for very-high-resolution (2 m/pix) imaging of selected areas. Subsolar latitude Visible Mapping Camera < -10 during some of the prime mission for south polar viewing. Lower priority: Multiple looks at same location from 30-m horizontal and 10-m vertical resolution. Morphology and different angles required for stereo. Plume imaging over several orbital cycles distribution of tectonic Desire 10-m spot size at ranges < 1000 km; 100-m pointing accuracy, multi-beam for crossover analysis. ~180 orbits features Laser Altimeter Global and regional topography required for global topography with 1 resolution. Subsurface expression of tectonic features, with 100-m vertical resolution 100-m pointing accuracy Radar Sounder h2 Love number (same measurements as for Biological potential/Location and distribution of liquid water h 2 requirement) k 2 Love number (same measurements as for Biological potential/Location and distribution of liquid water k 2 requirement) USO, part of communication Static Gravity field and regional gravity anomalies with resolution better than 1 mGal Orbiter with polar and low inclination orbits, or multiple close flybys subsystem Desire 10-m spot size at ranges < 1000 km; 100-m pointing accuracy, multi-beam for crossover analysis. ~180 orbits Tectonic stresses Laser Altimeter required for global topography with 1 resolution. Orbiter allowing global coverage with some high inclination orbits, or 15 flybys at each of at least three different Topography with 30-m horizontal resolution and 10-m vertical resolution subsolar longitudes. Variable altitude for very-high-resolution (2 m/pix) imaging of selected areas. Subsolar latitude Visible Mapping Camera < -10 during some of the prime mission for south polar viewing. Multiple looks at same location from different angles required for stereo. Desire 10-m spot size, 100-m pointing accuracy. Multiple altimetry profiles of the same features at different orbital Laser Altimeter Altimetry profiles with 10-m horizontal and 0.1-m vertical resolution positions relative to periapse, to look for motion Motion of individual tectonic features Lifetime of several Enceladus days. One location is sufficient for characterizing level and style of activity, two or more Seismometer Characterize and locate sources of seismic activity locations are preferred for more detailed analysis including source determination Thermal Mapper Visible camera Radar Sounder

Tectonics

Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Hard or Soft Lander Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

Global surface temperature maps, both day and night, 100-m spatial resolution, temperature sensitivity Orbiter allowing global coverage with some high inclination orbits, or 10 flybys at each of at least three different subsolar longitudes Heat flow and thermal 0.5 K at 60 K structure Bolometric albedo maps to 5% precision Wide range of viewing and illumination geometries Subsurface thermal profile, penetrate ice to depth of 250 K isotherm (~6 km), 100-m vertical resolution. 100-m pointing accuracy h and k Love numbers (same requirements as for Biological potential/Location and distribution of liquid water measurements above) Static Gravity Field (same measurements as for Tectonics/Tectonic Stresses static gravity field requirement) Tidal Heating Internal density Topography (same measurements as for Tectonics/Tectonic Stresses topography requirement) and Interior structure and ice shell Image subsurface ice structure to 250 K (~6 km) with 100-m vertical resolution. 100-m pointing accuracy Structure thickness Seismic measurements with displacement sensitivity better than 1 mm at periods 0.001- 0.1 Hz. Short Lifetime of several Enceladus days. One location is sufficient for normal mode measurement of shell thickness, two at period sensitivity better than 0.1 micron/s at frequencies up to 100 Hz different locations are preferred for more detailed interior structure determination Magnetic field measurements to 0.1 nT Polar orbits ideal Surface magnetic field measurements to 0.1 nT Lifetime of several Enceladus days, continuous operation. Location and distribution of liquid h and k Love numbers (same requirements as for Biological potential/Location and distribution of liquid water measurements above) water Seismic measurements with displacement sensitivity better than 1 mm at periods 0.001- 0.1 Hz. Short Lifetime of several Enceladus days. One location is sufficient for normal mode measurement of shell thickness, two at period sensitivity better than 0.1 micron/s at frequencies up to 100 Hz different locations are preferred for more detailed interior structure determination Plume physical Same measurements as Cryovolcanism/Plume physical characteristics science goal characteristics Plume chemistry Same measurements as for Biological potential/Plume chemistry science goal Magnetic field measurements to 0.1 nT Polar orbits ideal Interaction of gas plume with magnetospheric Saturn System plasma and neutrals Interactions Energetic ions, electrons, 20 keV to 10 MeV Polar Orbiter or multiple flybys with variable geometry 3-D plasma distribution function, composition, from 1 eV to 50 keV, 40% energy resolution, 20 angular Polar Orbiter or multiple flybys through plume resolution Map O, OH, other species, in the neutral torus. Spectral range of 0.08 - 0.38 micron, 0.0002-micron Pointing flexibility spectral resolution at selected wavelengths 0.1-micron spatial resolution, elemental resolution down to carbon E-ring structure and dynamics Visible imaging of E-ring with 10-km spatial resolution, 3 wavelengths (0.35, 0.55, 0.9 micron). Dust size distribution over 0.1 - 100 micron, dust velocity distribution, composition (ice, silicon, organics) Energetic ions, electrons, 20 keV to 10 MeV Low-speed data collection Flexible pointing including high phase angles, observations outside the Saturn ring plane are valuable Polar Orbiter or multiple flybys through plume Polar Orbiter or multiple flybys with variable geometry

Radar Sounder Seismometer Magnetometer Magnetometer Seismometer

Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Hard or Soft Lander Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Hard or Soft Lander Hard or Soft Lander

2 1 1 2 1

Magnetometer Energetic ion and electron spectrometer Low Energy Plasma Analyzer FUV Spectrometer Dust Micro-analyzer Visible camera Dust Analyzer, with ion and neutral mass spectrometer, pyrolizer (in orbit) Energetic ion and electron spectrometer Low Energy Plasma Analyzer Dust Analyzer, with ion and neutral mass spectrometer, pyrolizer (in orbit) Panoramic Lander Camera(s)

Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Enceladus Orbiter prior to Enceladus orbit insertion Saturn or Enceladus orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Saturn or Enceladus Orbiter Hard or soft Lander

1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1

Sputtering and Radiolysis Surface Processes Surface physical processes: impact, plume deposition, mass wasting Surface Chemistry

3-D plasma distribution function, composition, from 1 eV to 50 keV, 40% energy resolution, 20 angular Polar Orbiter or multiple flybys with variable geometry resolution Dust size distribution over 0.1 - 100 micron, dust velocity distribution, composition (ice, silicon, organics) Polar Orbiter or multiple flybys through plume

Global daytime imaging (same measurements as for Tectonics/Morphology and distribution of tectonic features global daytime imaging requirement) Visible imaging, 0.3 mrad angular resolution, 4 wavelengths (0.3 - 1.0 micron), steerable At least 1 meter above the surface Same measurements as for Biological potential/Global distribution of chemical species and Biological potential/Detailed surface chemistry science goals

2-19

ENCELADUS

planned, these are not over the south pole, and the closest planned approach to the plume sources is 100 km. Even this altitude may be determined to be too hazardous, and may be increased. Cassini is thus limited in its ability to investigate near-vent conditions that may reveal crucial information on the nature of the plume source, and more distant flybys reduce gas density, limiting sensitivity to potentially critical trace species in the plume. Cassinis instrumentation also has important limitations. The remote sensing instruments are not designed for rapid coverage of large areas dur ing close flybys, allowing only postage stamp coverage at maximum resolution (Figure 2.2.2-1). Wide-field push-broom sensors, such as those carried on many recent spacecraft (e.g., MOC on Mars Global Surveyor, Ralph on New Horizons, and HiRISE on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) on the missions studied here can make much bet ter use of precious time near closest approach. The mass-to-charge (m/z) ranges of the mass spectrometers in the INMS (range 1-99 atomic mass units (amu), Waite et al. 2004) and CDA instruments (Srama et al. 2004) are insufficient to detect complex organic molecules directly that might be critical in determining the biological po tential of Enceladus. A wider m/z range for anal yses of plume ions, neutral gas, and ice particles would significantly improve science return, even at flythrough speeds comparable to Cassini (several km/s). Moreover, the opportunity to sample plume material relatively undisturbed, at the low veloci ties associated with an Enceladus orbiter, does not exist on Cassini. This improvement would addi tionally allow the analysis of more fragile organic compounds that could not survive the encounter at much higher speeds in any recognizable form (i.e., only as small fragments). Cassini also does not carry instrumentation, such as ground-penetrating radar, that can pro vide direct information about the subsurface structure, and presence of liquid water, near the plume source. Cassini also has no ability to di rectly measure tidal flexing (e.g., using a laser altimeter), which would provide unique infor mation on the possible presence of an ocean and the nature of the tidal heat source. Furthermore, Cassini has no ability to do the bulk surface chemical analysis or seismic measurements that can only be performed by a lander. The mission concepts studied in this report alleviate most of the above limitations on Cassinis ability to address Enceladus science goals, using a combination of improved instrumentation, and mission designs better suited to Enceladus science. See Table 2.4.6 -1.

EN071

Figure 2.2.2-1: Expected Cassini remote sensing coverage of the south polar region of Enceladus on Rev. 91, the only encounter currently guaranteed to be dedicated to remote sensing before the sun sets for the south pole in August 2009. Images and other data are taken as the spacecraft speeds away from Enceladus. The stippled region is in darkness. White squares show the fields of view of the narrow-angle camera (1024x1024 pixels) and the near-infrared instrument (VIMS, 12 x 24 pixels), and the red rectangle shows the size of the thermal-IR instrument (CIRS) field of view (1 x 10 pixels). Fields of view are shown every 2 minutes, because VIMS requires 2 minutes to scan each field of view shown. The field of view at +1 minute has an imaging resolution of 6 meters. Field of view placement is arbitrary. In contrast, the missions proposed here would image most of Enceladus with a spatial resolution of 10 meters, almost as good as the single highest-resolution Cassini image shown here. 2.3 instrument types The follow sections outline the details of vari ous instrument types considered for orbiter and lander missions. Category 1 instruments were

2-20

ENCELADUS

included in the mission designs, while Category 2 instruments were omitted because they were judged to have somewhat lower science value (Tables 2.3.7-1 and 2.3.7-2) and because resources were not available to support them. It should be noted that these are discussed only as example strawman payload possibilities. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, nor is it intended to imply that this the exact payload that should be chosen. Rather, this list was chosen to provide a balanced complement of instruments represen tative of a payload that could meet the science goals and measurement objectives and to provide scoping information for the detailed mission designs discussed in Section 3. 2.3.1 orbiter Remote sensing instruments 2.3.1.1 thermal Mapper (category 1) The thermal mapper is used to determine passive surface temperatures with a typical diurnal range of 50 to 75 K (Spencer et al. 2006) and temperatures along the tiger stripes and other active endogenic features, which reach at least 150 K and probably much warmer. Science goals include understanding the geophysics and thermodynamics of the plume source regions, and determination of local and global heat flow. The design concept is again a push-broom design similar to the Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS, Christensen et al. 2004), the thermal mapper aboard Mars Odyssey, and uses a microbolometer array to obtain images at three broadband wavelengths (centered near 5, 15, and 30 microns). To improve signal-to-noise, multiple images are shifted and added together as the scene moves across the focal plane. The use of multiple wavelengths allows determination of the temperature and area of small (sub-pixel) regions at temperatures much higher than the background temperature, as are likely near the tiger stripes. The sensitivity of commercial microbolometer arrays at wavelengths beyond 20 microns is not well characterized, and here an extrapolation of short-wavelength behavior is assumed in calculating sensitivities. With the long exposures per resolution element possible in Enceladus orbit in push-broom mode (~100 seconds), and a THEMIS-like design, with a 20-40 micron filter, a sensitivity of better than +/-1 K is expected down to 65 K at 100 m/pixel spatial resolution, or down to 50 K when binned to 1 km resolution. For the Saturn orbiter, with 4 km/second flyby speeds and thus much shorter effective exposure times of 2.5 seconds, sensitivity of better than +/- 1 K is expected down to 63 K at 1 km resolution, or 84 K at 100 meter resolution. This compromises mapping of nighttime temperatures but still provides good sensitivity to daytime temperatures at reduced spatial resolution, and excellent science at the warm tiger stripes. Sensitivity could be improved in this case by the use of longer wavelengths, if long-wavelength detector sensitiv ity could be improved.
Resource Estimates

Mass (11 kg), power (14 W), and volume (55x29x37 cm) are assumed to be similar to THEMIS. 2.3.1.2 near-iR Mapper (category 1) The Near-Infrared (NIR) Mapping Spectrom eter is based on heritage from the Cassini VIMS (Visible and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer), the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) and the New Horizons Ralph/MVIC-LEISA instrument (Brown et al. 2005; Reuter et al. 2005; Green et al. 2007). For the Saturn orbiter it is combined with the push-broom visible mapper behind a single telescope, as in the New Horizons Ralph instrument, resulting in significant reductions in mass, power and volume requirements. The use of a push-broom imaging spectrometer design eliminates the need for moving parts while en abling high signal-to-noise observations. In order to achieve 100 m NIR spatial resolution from a 200 km orbit, the instantaneous field-of-view (IFOV) is 0.5 mrad/pixel and the swath width, assuming a 256-pixel array in the spatial direc tion like LEISA, is 25 km. The instrument covers the spectral range from 1 to 5 m at a spectral resolution of 4 nm, requiring 1000 spectral pixels, and uses 12-bit precision. This is sufficient to uniquely identify most of the volatile, clathrate, and hydrate compounds predicted to exist at the surface. This instrument generates data at a high rate (6 Mbits/s in Enceladus orbit), and to intel ligent onboard compression (e.g., spatial and/or spectral averaging in relatively featureless parts of the spectrum) would be used to enable large, but flexible, reductions in the data volume.
Resource Estimates

For the Enceladus orbiter, mass (10 kg), power (6 W), and volume (50x50x30 cm) are assumed similar to Ralph when combined with the pushbroom visible imager. For the Saturn orbiter, because of the requirement for shorter exposures

2-21

ENCELADUS

and faster readouts discussed below in the visible mapper section, these parameters are assumed for the near-IR mapper alone. 2.3.1.3 visible Mapper (category 1) The visible mapper considered for these mission concepts is a push-broom instrument based on the Multicolor Visible Imaging Camera (MVIC) carried by New Horizons, part of the Ralph in strument (Reuter et al. 2007). MVIC has four 32x5000 pixel CCD arrays, each overlain with a separate color filter, plus a panchromatic channel. The CCDs are operated in Time Delay Integration (TDI) mode, can cover a swath 5000 pixels wide and an arbitrary number of pixels long. Many other modern planetary imagers, for instance HiRISE on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter operate on a similar principle. These imagers are well suited for covering large areas in a short period of time without the time-consuming mosaicing required by a traditional framing camera. Four broadband color filters, probably centered near 0.35, 0.55, 0.80, and 0.95 microns, would provide the ability to map dark surface contaminants and coarse-grained water ice at very high spatial resolution. In the Saturn orbiter mission, with MVICs optics (field of view 0.1 radians), this instrument could cover a 200 x 40 km swath at 10 m/pixel from 500 km range on each flyby, greatly improving on Cassinis resolution and coverage over the course of the mission (Cassini has so far taken only a single image at comparable resolution, covering 2 x 2 km). On the Enceladus orbiter, with a nominal altitude of 200 km, wider optics than MVIC (field of view 0.2 radians) would be used in order to image a 40 - 50 km swath from this altitude.
Resource Estimates

shorter (~0.08 seconds for a 32-pixel wide array like MVIC), requiring much faster readout elec tronics and perhaps a larger telescope than MVIC for adequate signal-to-noise. To accommodate these enhancements, for the Saturn orbiter the full Ralph mass and power is allocated to the visible mapper and a similar mass and power to the near-IR mapper, doubling the mass and power of the combined package. 2.3.1.4 Framing camera (category 2) For the Saturn orbiter, a framing camera was considered as a Category 2 instrument. The pur pose of this camera, which would have a narrower field of view and higher resolution than the pushbroom camera, would be to image Enceladus, its plumes, and the E-ring (and other targets of op portunity in the Saturn system) during the times when the spacecraft is not close to the moon. The nominal design is based on the New Horizons Long-Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI, Cheng et al. 2007), which has a 5-mrad field of view and a 5-microrad pixel size. A filter wheel would be added to this design.
Resource Estimates

LORRI mass, power, and volume is 9 kg, 5 W, and approximately 25 x 25 x 50 cm. With the addition of the filter wheel, 11 kg, 7 W, and 25 x 25 x 60 cm are estimated for the Enceladus instru ment. 2.3.1.5 uv spectrometer (category 2) An ultraviolet spectrometer could be used for remote characterization of the Enceladus plume and the neutral torus that it creates around Saturn. It is a Category 2 instrument, because one can obtain more detailed information about the plume from direct in-situ sampling and because the neutral torus is part of the Saturn sys tem interaction Priority 3 science goal, and thus it is not included in the mission concept payloads. However, it would be a valuable addition if resources were available. For instance it would allow more frequent characterization of the plume from the Enceladus orbiter, which spends most of its time in a medium-inclination orbit which does not intersect the plume, than would be possible from in-situ instruments. The density of H2O and probably additional gases could be determined, as with Cassini (Hansen et al. 2006 ), using stel lar occultations in the 12001800 range, and

In Enceladus orbit when nadir pointing, exposure times are long (4 seconds per pixel, compared to typical exposures of ~1 second for MVIC), so telescope size could possibly be reduced compared to MVIC, resulting in mass savings, but the MVIC mass is assumed here to be conservative. On New Horizons MVIC is combined with the near-infrared mapper (the Linear Etalon Imaging Spectral Array, LEISA), into a single instrument called Ralph, and here a similar configuration is assumed, with the same combined mass (10 kg), power (6 W), and volume (50x50x30 cm) as Ralph. For the high flyby speeds of the Saturn orbiter ~4 km/sec, TDI exposure times are much

2-22

ENCELADUS

N2 could be mapped using solar occultations at 800900 . In addition, the neutral torus could be mapped using line emission from neutral O (1304 ), (Esposito et al. 2005), and, if the instrument had sufficient wavelength coverage, from OH at 3090 (Shemansky et al. 1993).
Resource Estimates

Mass (4.4 kg), power (4 W), and volume (30x20x15 cm) are assumed to be the same as the New Horizons Alice instrument (Stern et al. 2007), which covers the wavelength range 520 to 1800 and has a solar occultation port and photon-counting time-tag mode for occultations, and thus could accomplish all these science goals without modification (except for the low-priority 3090 OH torus mapping). 2.3.2 orbiter Geophysics instruments 2.3.2.1 laser altimeter (category 1) The example laser altimeter is a multi-beam instrument similar to the LOLA altimeter on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (Smith et al. 2006 ). Its primary objectives are: to determine the time-variable long-wavelength (tidal) topog raphy of Enceladus (cf., Wahr et al. 2006 ); to determine the global, static short-wavelength to pography (cf., Smith et al. 2001); and to improve knowledge of spacecraft position using crossover analysis (cf., Neumann et al. 2001). For an orbiter these requirements are relatively straightforward, and would in many ways resemble those met by Mars Global Surveyor (Smith et al. 2001). The requirements are more difficult to satisfy with a series of flybys, and require periapses and ground tracks distributed across the satellite, and varying approach directions, to ensure sufficient longitu dinal coverage and crossovers. The nominal flyby frequency of once per 8.22 days over > 400 days ensures that observations will be made at various points in the tidal cycle of Enceladus (precession period 1.31 years). It is estimated that 45 well-distributed flybys are sufficient to satisfy the requirements (Neumann, personal communication). The principal modification to the original LOLA design is the use of a pulse-pumped fiber laser amplifier, rather than a single-stage laser. This modification entails lower pulse energies (1 mJ). For an Enceladus orbiter at 200 km altitude, the reduced power and the lower spacecraft velocity compared with the Moon increases the

spot size compared with LOLA (to 20 m) and decreases the sampling rate (to 7 Hz). The origi nal five-spot configuration is retained, with the spots contained within a 200 m diameter circle. Pointing knowledge of 10 arcsec is set by the spot size and assumed spacecraft altitude (200 km). The vertical precision is 0.1m and the maximum range 1000 km. For a flyby mission, the space craft velocity is much greater (4 km/s), resulting in a greater spot spacing (130 m) even with a higher (30 Hz) sampling rate, and thus degrading the vertical precision.
Resource Estimates

The reduced pulse energy requires a larger (30 cm) telescope compared with LOLA. The mass (10 kg) and dimensions (42x45x36 cm for the optics; 21x29x12 cm for the electronics) are assumed to be similar to LOLA; the power re quirements (10 W) are reduced due to the dif ferent laser employed. Although a pulse-pumped laser has not been employed before as an altimeter, such lasers build on extensive flight experi ence and form a central part of the Mars Laser Communication Demonstration system (Townes et al. 2004). 2.3.2.2 Radio science (category 1) Although not involving a dedicated science instrument, spacecraft tracking (and specifically, the Doppler-derived line-of-sight velocity) allows determination of the satellites internal structure and whether it possesses an ocean. The main objectives of the radio science investigation are to determine the tidal response of the satellite (that is, its k 2 Love number), and to determine the loworder harmonics of the gravity field. A satellites Love number depends on its internal structure, and in particular whether an ocean decouples the ice shell from the subsurface (Moore and Schubert 2000; Wahr et al. 2006). Degree-2 gravity harmonics allow the moment of inertia of the body, and hence its internal structure, to be constrained (e.g., Anderson et al. 1998). Higher-or der harmonics, coupled with topography, may allow the rigidity of the ice shell to be determined. Even with the relatively frequent orbital corrections required at Enceladus, determination of the low-order gravity harmonics via observa tions of the line-of-sight velocity of an orbiter is straightforward. Individual flybys can in general

2-23

ENCELADUS

only constrain some lumped combination of the degree-2 gravity harmonics; multiple flybys at dif ferent inclinations are required to determine them independently.
Resource Estimates Resource Estimates

A standard Ultra-Stable Oscillator (USO), with a mass of 1 kg and power of 1.5 W, was included in the example payload to meet this measurement objective. 2.3.2.3 Magnetometer (category 1) The strawman magnetometer is essentially iden tical to the instrument currently being flown on the MESSENGER mission to Mercury (Anderson et al. in press). Its primary scientific aims are to search for an induction signature due to a puta tive subsurface ocean on Enceladus (cf., Zimmer et al. 2000), and to characterize the magnetic and plasma environment surrounding the satellite. The primary induction signature arises because of the periodically varying Enceladus-Saturn distance. The expected induction amplitude is 2-3 nT, comparable to time-variable Alfven cur rents that arise due to the interaction of Saturns magnetosphere with the tenuous atmosphere generated by Enceladus plumes (Dougherty et al. 2006 ). Distinguishing between these competing effects using spacecraft flybys alone is challeng ing and likely to require at least 50 passes within one satellite radius (Khurana, personal comm.). Simultaneous measurements with a lander mag netometer (here assumed to have the same char acteristics as the spacecraft version, minus the boom) allow the internal and external field har monics to be separated and thus greatly simplify matters. Detecting an induction signature with an orbiter, as opposed to multiple flybys, is more straightforward because it allows a much better characterization of the time-variable magneto spheric environment surrounding the satellite. The instrument consists of a boom-mounted three-axis ring-core fluxgate magnetometer, with an operating range of +/- 1530 nT, with a resolu tion of 0.047 nT and a maximum sampling fre quency of 40 Hz.

The mass (4 kg), power (1W) power and volume (10x10x15 cm, plus a 10m boom which is deployed after launch) are similar to the MESSENGER specifications; the data rate is increased slightly to account for the higher time-resolution needed to separate short-period plasma fluctuations from the longer-period induction signature. 2.3.2.4 Radar sounder (category 1 or 2) Only the Enceladus-O mission concept is as sumed to include a radar sounder as Category 1, though it would be a valuable addition, as a Category 2 instrument, on the other concepts or biters. The design for the strawman radar sounder is based on the extensive study by the Europa Ra dar Sounder Instrument Definition Team (IDT) (Blankenship et al. 1999). The main aim of this instrument is to characterize the subsurface struc ture of the ice shell on Enceladus, and potential ly to detect an ice-ocean interface. Penetration depths of tens of kilometers are possible, depend ing on the thermal structure of the ice shell. A sec ondary data set will be surface altimetry, though this will have lower spatial resolution than that obtained from the laser altimeter. The basic design consists of a deployable 10m x 2.6m Yagi antenna, a 20-W transmitter, and a receiver. The transmitting frequency is 50 MHz, resulting in vertical and lateral reso lution of ~100m and ~2 km, respectively, from a nominal orbital altitude of 200 km. The data transmission rate has been increased by a fac tor of five relative to the planned Europa Mode 1 rate because a higher overall downlink band width is anticipated. This increase will allow data to be transmitted with less onboard pre-process ing. The 25% duty cycle arises primarily from the competing data transmission requirements of the other remote sensing instruments.
Resource Estimates

Mass (9 kg) power (20 W), and volume (10m x 2.6m for the antenna, 10x15x10 cm for the elec tronics) are based on the Europa IDT report. The basic design would perform significantly better at Enceladus than Europa, due to the lower orbital velocity and the much-reduced background noise

2-24

ENCELADUS

of Saturn compared to Jupiter. Thus, the current mass and power estimates are highly conservative. 2.3.3 saturn orbiter In-Situ instruments 2.3.3.1 ion and neutral Gas Mass spectrom eter (category 1) The ion and neutral gas mass spectrom eter (INGMS) instrument provides a means to measure chemical composition in the vicinity of Enceladus, as encountered during flybys by the spacecraft. The primary interest is in obtaining a broad composition of the plume emanating from the south polar region, during fly-through trajec tories of various altitudes. As such the experimen tal scenario for INGMS is similar to that of the ion and neutral mass spectrometer (INMS) on Cassini (Waite et al. 2004), with new capabilities optimized for Enceladus science. In the Saturn-OL (Enceladus flyby) mis sion concept, encounter speeds are expected to be ~4 km/s. This is half the speed of the recent Enceladus flyby by Cassini/INMS, but still high enough that the open and closed source-type analysis of neutrals and ions with ram enhance ment can be accomplished as in INMS. An ap propriate recent proxy for INGMS is the version of the Neutral Gas and Ion Mass Spectrometer (NGIMS) that was developed for CONTOUR. The CONTOUR NGIMS is a modern deriva tive of INMS and earlier NGIMS designs, with increased sensitivity and mass range. The objec tive mass range for INGMS is 300 amu, which could permit detection of any free (and likely neutral) complex aromatics that might be en trained in the plume. Unit mass resolution across the mass range (m/m approaching 300 defined at the 10% peak height positions) is considered sufficient to provide identification of the major ity of peaks based on nominal mass and isotope patterns. The absolute quantities of N and O are important for understanding the potential for liq uid water on Enceladus. INMS has detected a sig nificant signal at m/z 28, presumed to be mostly N2 (Waite et al. 2006 ). Resolving CO and N2 directly would require a mass resolution at least ten times this level. While desirable in principle and certainly possible with various mass analyzer types, such performance should not come at the cost of low sensitivity to complex trace organic species or poor precision in isotope ratios. These isobars could be resolved indirectly with multiple electron ionization energies. Through a combina tion of higher sensitivity, reduced detector/back ground noise, and careful preflight calibration using Cassini INMS and other data, INGMS is expected to measure directly the concentrations of NH3, HCN, C2H2, C2H6, C3H8, CH3CN, C6H6 and multi-ring compounds, etc. (or provide upper bounds) to mixing ratios of 10-100 parts per million (ppm) by volume, with statistical er rors (relative standard deviations) of ~ 10%-20%. The instrument will also measure noble gas abun dances and isotopes at Enceladus as well as other key isotope ratios such as D/H and d15N.
Resource Estimates

Mass (10 kg), power (25 W), and volume (25x25x20 cm) are derived from the Contour NGIMS instrument. 2.3.3.2 dust analyzer (category 1) The Enceladus dust analyzer instrument pro vides a means to measure chemical composition of dust particles in the vicinity of Enceladus, as encountered during flybys of the Saturn orbiter in the Saturn-OL mission concept. The primary interest is in analyzing the icy particulate com ponent of the plume emanating from the south polar region, during fly-through trajectories of various altitudes. As such, the experimental sce nario for the dust analyzer is similar to that of the Cosmic Dust Analyzer (CDA) on Cassini (Spahn et al. 2006 ), with new capabilities optimized for Enceladus science. The vast majority of icy particles emanating from the Enceladus south polar vents return to the surface (snow out) in the same region (VIMS data indicate typical grain sizes of sev eral hundred mm between tiger stripes). Even so, escaping dust (v > 235 m/s) dominates the flux experienced by CDA by a factor of ten or more over other sources (E-ring or interplanetary). For such escaping particles, the inferred total mass es cape rate is 0.04 kg/s. These particles are primar ily water ice grains, with a minority population of silicate+H2O grains, and contain minor or trace levels of other compounds including organic mol ecules. CDA has obtained dust flux data (Spahn et al. 2006) and some compositional data using TOF-MS out to m/z 150 (Srama et al. 2006 ). The Enceladus dust analyzer instrument will take ad vantage of updated technology, such as developed

2-25

ENCELADUS

for the Cometary Impact Dust Analyzer (CIDA) on Stardust, to improve the sensitivity and m/z range for mass analysis of these species. Dust analyzer data out to at least m/z 300 amu/e- with unit mass resolution will be compared directly with the INGMS data over the same m/z range, to help determine (1) if ice par ticle, neutral gas, and ions sample the same sub surface material, and if it is liquid; (2) if trace or ganic compounds (either volatile or non-volatile) are associated with the minor silicate phase or water ice in the particles; and (3) if there is evi dence of liquid-phase prebiotic synthesis drawing chemical precursors from or involving surface reactions with bounding silicate-matrix walls. The dust analyzer will also be used to more fully analyze the distribution and composition of dust particles in the E ring.
Resource Estimates

7. Good dynamic range for energy-per-charge, fast transitions between steps 8. Fast time-resolution capability 9. Low data rate Particles that pass through the electrostatic analyzer have a known E/Q, proportional to the stepped deflection voltage. They are then postaccelerated by a fixed voltage, before passing through a very thin carbon foil. The ions travel a known distance and hit the stop micro-channel plate (MCP), while forward-scattered electrons from the carbon foil are focused onto the start MCP. Position sensing with a wedge-and-strip anode in the start MCP assembly determines the initial incidence angle. The mass-per-charge (M/Q) of a given ion follows from the known E/Q and the measured time of flight, allowing reconstruction of distribution functions for dif ferent M/Q species. In its Normal (nominal) scan mode, the electrostatic analyzer system covers the E/Q range in 64 logarithmically spaced steps every 65 s. It can also run in a fast Burst mode that allows highly focused sweeps in only 2 s. In addition to the FIPS, an electron spectrom eter would also be desirable. This could be based on the FIPS design, but would eliminate the time of flight section of the FIPS sensor. The addition al resources for the electron spectrometer would then be ~1.0 W power, 0.5 kg mass, and approxi mately half the volume of the FIPS head.
Resource Estimates

Mass (5 kg), power (5 W), and volume (10x10x10 cm) are derived from the Cassini CDA and Stardust CIDA instruments. 2.3.3.3 low Energy Plasma analyzer (category 2) The ion portion of this example instrument is based directly on the Mercury MESSENGER Fast Imaging Plasma Spectrometer (FIPS, Gold et al. 2001). It will characterize the plasma ion en vironment of Enceladus, so that both sputtering and plasma-plume interactions may be measured and modeled quantitatively. The design of the FIPS sensor is predicated on the following goals: 1. Low mass, volume, and power

2. Suppression of ultraviolet (UV) to permit operation in full sunlight near Mercury 2.3.3.4 Energetic Particle spectrometer (category 2) 3. Wide field of view

Mass (1.4 kg), power (2.1 W), and volume (17x21x19 cm), without the electron spectrom eter, are derived from the Messenger FIPS instru ment.

This strawman instrument is based directly on the New Horizons Pluto Energetic Particle Spectrometer Science Investigation (PEPSSI) 4. Large dynamic range sensor and the Mercury MESSENGER Energetic Particles Spectrometer (EPS, Gold et al. 2001). 5. Good mass resolution It will characterize the energetic ion and elec 6. High voltages required for the electrostatic tron environment of Enceladus, so that surface analyzer, and for post-acceleration, which processes such as sputtering and radiolysis can be enables low-energy ions to penetrate the car modeled quantitatively. bon foil
2-26

ENCELADUS

The EPS head is a compact particle telescope with a time-of-flight (TOF) section 6 cm long and a solid-state detector (SSD) array. A mechanical collimator defines the acceptance angles for the incoming ions and electrons. The collimator together with the internal geometry defines the acceptance angles. The FOV is 160 by 12 with six segments of 25 each; the total geometric factor is ~0.1 cm2 str. Energetic ions from ~ 5 keV/nucleon to 1 MeV total energy are binned in energy and species using TOF only at lower energies, TOF x E at higher energies. Energetic electrons are measured simultaneously in the dedicated electron pixels from ~20 to 700 keV. Only protons with energies >300 keV (and water-group ions with higher energies,) can penetrate the Al absorber on these pixels. Most such high-energy penetrators are eliminated by onboard coincidence with MCP events; the rest can be removed by ground analysis of the data containing the simultaneous ion flux (Williams et al. 1994).
Resource Estimates

operates in two modes: (1) dynamic, or continu ous gas inlet and pumping, or high throughput and sub-picomole (< 10-12 mol) sensitivities; or (2) static, or batch gas inlet and no active pumping, for high-precision isotope measurements. The QMS ion source is identical to the NGIMS closed source which is ten times more sensitive than that of the Cassini INMS. A sample collection funnel would be used to collect ice and dust particles in the Enceladus plume during low speed flybys. The captured material could then be analyzed by the in-situ instruments including pyrolysis GCMS and the Dust Micro-Analyzer (below). Assuming a 1:1 solid/gas mass ratio and the UVIS-derived near surface gas column density of 1.6 x 1016 molecules of H2O per cm2, a column density of 5 x 10-7 g/cm2 of gas is calculated (Section 2.5). Using a 100 cm2 surface area collection funnel, approxi mately 50g of dust could be collected for anal ysis during a single plume passage. GCMS has a limit of sensitivity for amino acids at the 10-12 mol range. If one assumes part per million levels (g amino acid per g ice/dust) of amino acids in the Enceladus plume, then one could collect 5 x 10-13 mol of amino acids in each plume passage. Therefore, sample from at least two plume passages would be required to detect amino acids if present at the part per million level.
Resource Estimates

The EPS sensor has a mass of ~2.5 kg, power 2 W, and dimensions ~10 x 10 x 15 cm. Further efficiencies in mass, power, and volume can be realized by building common electronics elements for FIPS, e-FIPS, and EPS, similar to what was done on MESSENGER. 2.3.4 Enceladus orbiter In-Situ instruments 2.3.4.1 Gas chromatograph Mass spectrometer (category 1) The Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer (GCMS) instrument is based on heritage from the Cassini-Huygens Titan Probe GCMS and the Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) GCMS on the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL). Enceladus ice and dust particles collected during plume pas sage can be heated by vacuum pyrolysis and the evolved gases then separated by gas chromatography. Both simple and complex hydrocarbons with molecular weights up to 535 amu can be detected at the part per billion by quadrupole mass spectrometry (QMS) or time of flight mass spectrometry. Carbon isotopic measurements (13C/12C) of carbon dioxide released from the plume particles can be measured to 3 per mil with the QMS. In addition, reduced inorganic gases such as ammonia can be measured at < 100 ppb. The QMS

The mass (15 kg), power (20 W, on average) and volume (25x25x20 cm) are derived from the Cassini Huygens Probe GCMS (Niemann et al. 2002) and the SAM GCMS instrument on the 2009 Mars Science Laboratory (MSL). Reduced mass, power, and volume could be achieved if a miniature time of flight mass spectrometer was used instead of a QMS. 2.3.4.2 dust Micro-analyzer (category 1) As noted above, the low relative speed from Enceladus orbit makes it possible to catch plume particles and get them affixed to the surface of a known substrate for some form of imaging. The proposed instrument is based on MEMSA (Micro Electron Microprobe with Sample Analyzer, Manohara et al. 2005), which is a form of scanning electron microscope that will have high spatial resolution (<40 nm) and perform energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) analyses, and is well-suited to this purpose. The targeted energy range for EDX

2-27

ENCELADUS

is from 100 eV to 20 keV, which covers low-Z elements of biological interest such as carbon to high-Z trace elements of mineralogical interest. This technology builds on the SEMPA instrument that had been approved for the (cancelled) Rosetta mission. MEMSA achieves significant weight reduction by using high-current carbon nanotube bundle arrays developed at JPL that accelerate electrons using only 8-10 V/m, and can yield a spot resolution of ~ 40 nm (Manohara et al. 2005). In addition, MEMSA uniquely avoids the energy-consuming and massive beam scanning technology in electron microscopy by simply stepping the sample across a stationary electron beam with piezoelectric transducers. This instrument would also be fed by the sample collection funnel described in the GCMS section above. A Dust Micro-Analyzer is considered Category 1 because scanning electron microscopy with an analytical capability is one of the most powerful techniques available for the initial characterization of novel or unknown materials in both the biological and geological sciences. It is even conceivable that biological structures ejected from the plume vents could be imaged by such an instrument, something that would be the discovery of the century.
Resource Estimates

visible above the horizon from the proposed south polar landing site, would also be valuable.
Resource Estimates

Mass (0.6 kg for the pair), power (5 W for the pair), and volume (roughly 8x8x8 cm each) are derived from the MER Pancam cameras. A mast roughly 1-m high is also required to support the cameras. 2.3.5.2 seismometer (category 1) The seismometer is part of the landed package that derives its design from the proposed Net Lander SEIS experiment (Lognonne et al. 2000). Its primary objectives are to detect long-period normal-mode oscillations (to determine the bulk interior structure of Enceladus; cf. Panning et al. 2006 ), and to detect shorter-period body and surface waves to infer the local ice-shell properties (cf., Lee et al. 2003, Kovach and Chyba, 2001). For moderately-sized (Mw~5; Nimmo and Schenk 2006) seismic events exciting regional or global surface waves, the required displacement sensitivity in the long-period (0.001-0.1 Hz) range is 1 mm (cf., Panning et al. 2006 ). In the short-period range (0.1-100 Hz), the velocity sensitivity required is better than 0.1 m/s to resolve the main P- and S-wave arrivals (Lee et al. 2003). The estimated sensitivity of the NetLander instrument of 10-10 m s-2 Hz-1/2 easily meets these requirements. Long-period (1 Hz) data require a continuous transmission rate of ~0.03 kbps; these records will be used to identify potential records of interest in the high-frequency data, which will be sub sequently transmitted (or this process could be automated on board the lander). In-situ storage of 24 hours of the high-frequency data requires 250 Mb. Although a network of at least three seismom eters is require to accurately locate seismic events, Kovach and Chyba (2001) and Lee et al. (2003) showed that a single seismometer suffices to infer ice shell thicknesses, using moderate period (2-10 s) surface waves and direct P- and S-wave reflections, respectively. A single seismometer also provides the frequency-amplitude relationship for longer period normal mode oscillations, which is sufficient to infer the deep interior structure of a satellite (Panning et al. 2006 ). The primary value

These are derived from the proposed MEMSA instrument. The simplified principle of operation of MEMSA translates to lighter weight (10 kg including sample collection system, compared to 13 kg), lower power (5 W vs. 25-30 W), and smaller dimensions (52010 cm vs. 502518 cm) compared to its SEMPA predecessor. 2.3.5 Enceladus soft lander instruments 2.3.5.1 lander camera (category 1) The soft lander would include a pair of cameras to provide context for the material that is sampled for onboard analysis, to investigate surface processes, and for serendipitous science. Use of two cameras would provide stereo coverage. Cameras similar to the Mars Exploration Rover Pancam system (Bell et al. 2003), which has a 0.27 mrad/ pixel resolution and eight filters per camera, would be very suitable. The camera would be mounted on an articulating mast to enable construction of full panoramas of the scene near the lander. Images of the south polar plume, which would be

2-28

ENCELADUS

of adding a second or third seismometer would be to accurately locate local events, potentially allowing correlation with individual surface features.
Resource Estimates

Mass (2.3 kg) and power (1 W) are assumed to be identical to those of the NetLander SEIS instrument. 2.3.5.3 Radio science (category 1) The Enceladus soft lander would also be capable of precise Doppler tracking from the orbiter, both to pinpoint its location and, in the Enceladus-OL concept, to potentially provide additional precise measurements of tidal flexing at one point on the surface. Tidal flexing measurements would not be possible using Doppler tracking from the lander in the Saturn-OL concept, because only two brief tracking opportunities exist (after landing and during relay eight days later), and both will occur at essentially the same point in Enceladus tidal cycle.
Resource Estimates

capillary channels filled with a chiral resin by ap plying an electric potential across the channel. Eluting compounds are then detected by laser induced fluorescence at part per trillion sensitivities. In addition, the CE system is used to transfer key molecular species in solution for direct analysis by ESI-TOF-MS. Electrospray effi ciently forms singly or multiply-charged ions of large parent molecules for MS analysis, includ ing amino acids/peptides, carboxylic acids/lipids, purines, pyrimidines, and other compounds of biochemical interest. The analysis of these ions by TOF-MS assures that the higher m/z parent compounds may be detected directly (m/z range of several thousand amu), thus complementing the more focused LIF method with a broad assay. Using the composition and chirality characteris tics of amino acids, along with characterization of a host of other key organics, the source (biologic or non-biologic, e.g., meteoritic organics) of these compounds can be determined. The chemometric sensor array measures the reaction rates of films that have different sensi tivities to particular types of oxidants expected to be present in the Enceladus surface environ ment. The detection of oxidants and a determination of their concentration with depth in the surface ice is important for understanding redox gradients that may serve as an energy source for a potential subsurface biosphere on Enceladus. These measurements are important for determin ing the chemical composition of the surface and determine what energy sources might be available to support life.
Resource Estimates

The transponder is assumed to be integral to the communications system and no additional mass and power allocation is assumed. 2.3.5.4 surface chemistry Package and oxidant detector (category 1) The surface chemistry package includes a micro capillary electrophoresis analyzer with laser induced fluorescence (CE-LIF) and electrospray ionization time of flight mass spectrometer (ESI-TOF-MS) for the detection of amino acids, amines, amino sugars, and nucleobases, and a chemometric sensor array for the detection of oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide and oxidizing acids. These instruments are similar to the Urey: Mars Organic and Oxidant Detector that was selected for the Pasteur Payload on the 2013 ESA ExoMars rover mission (Bada et al. 2005, Skelley et al. 2006 ). The CE-LIF instrument is used to determine the composition of target organic compounds of biological significance (such as amino acids), and if detected, are analyzed further to determine their chirality. Samples of Enceladus surface ice would be introduced into a CE chip and the organic species labeled with a fluorescent tag with microfluidics technology. Derivatized amines are then separated along tiny

The mass (3 kg), power (maximum 25 W) and volume (21x17x20 cm) are derived from the Mars Organic and Oxidant Detector instrument for the ESA ExoMars mission. 2.3.5.5 laser desorption Mass spectrometer (category 1) The laser desorption mass spectrometer (LDMS) instrument provides a means to measure the com position of Enceladus surface materials with no sample contact or preparation. A pulsed laser is focused onto a sample, causing chemical species to enter the gas phase directly, which are then analyzed by a mass spectrometer. The instrument can be operated in the hard vacuum conditions at Enceladus no pumps are needed. Both ice and

2-29

ENCELADUS

rock samples of any type may be studied, including the fine, frozen plume-derived particulate that likely coats much of the surface. Chemical species ionized by the laser are directly detected with a miniature time-of-flight mass spectrome ter (TOF-MS). The short, intense laser pulse coupled with the high mass-to-charge (m/z) range of the TOF-MS (up to ~104 amu/e-) permits the characterization of complex non-volatile organics including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polymeric compounds, and macromolecular hydrocarbons, which can have molecular weights from hundreds to thousands of amu. The particular abundance distributions and branching (heterosubstitution) patterns of these compounds, as a function of molecular weight, can aid in understanding the carbon inventory and cycle of Enceladus, and to distinguish between endogenous and exogenous (meteoritic) organics. The laser also volatilizes neutral atoms and molecules that can be independently sampled with the GCMS, providing that instrument with species that may be more difficult to sample with pyrolysis and electron ionization (EI) alone. Neutral species include those mentioned above as well as semi-volatile compounds (e.g., certain heavier carboxylic acids such as lipids) that could reveal complex organic synthesis at Enceladus, but which are challenging to ionize intact by EI. By controlling the laser intensity, elemental and molecular/organic composition may be obtained with LDMS. Both positive and negative ions may be analyzed, an important feature to characterize composition broadly. A possible implementation of LDMS on Enceladus involves direct analysis of solid samples after collection by an arm-based ice scraper or a scoop, as part of the whole sample analysis chain. Only a tiny amount of material, in the form of a thin layer of particles or an ice film, is required for laser sampling. Each analysis would involve approximately 103 laser pulses, at ~1 Hz, of increasing intensity. Neutral gas generated by laser desorption would be collected for GCMS simultaneously with the TOF-MS analysis of laser-induced ions. LDMS can additionally be used at high intensity to remove sample residue from the sample holder, detect and characterize any adsorbed contamination, and provide in-situ calibration using delivered solid-phase targets.
Resource Estimates

volume (36x7.6x7.6 cm) are derived from the ExoMars MOMA instrument. 2.3.5.6 Magnetometer (category 2) A magnetometer would be a useful addition to the lander science package: a combination of magnetic field measurements from a surface magnetometer and an orbital magnetometer would make it easier to separate the magnetic effects of induction within Enceladus, a valuable probe of the interior, from the effects of Enceladus interaction with the Saturnian magnetosphere. Magnetometer design would be very similar to that carried on the orbiter spacecraft previously described, though techniques other than a boom (e.g., ejection onto the surface) might be used to separate the magnetometer from the magnetic fields generated by the lander. This instrument is lower priority because the short lifetime of the battery-powered landers included in these studies would prevent useful synergism with a Saturn orbiter, and the Enceladus orbiter should provide adequate magnetic sounding even without the addition of a lander magnetometer.
Resource Estimates

Mass (4 kg) power (1 W), and volume (10x10x15 cm) are assumed similar to the MESSENGER magnetometer. 2.3.5.7 tunable laser spectrometer (category 2) The Tunable Laser Spectrometer (TLS) is a key instrument in the SAM suite on MSL. The TLS provides for high sensitivity, unambiguous detection of targeted species of biological relevance (e.g., methane to 0.1 ppb, water and hy drogen peroxide to 1 ppb) and isotope ratios (e.g., 13 C/12C, D/H, 17,18O/16O) to typically 1 per mil or below (Webster et al. 1990). The TLS is essential to carrying out measurements of trace species and precision isotope measurements for those frequent cases expected in an unknown chemical environ ment where spectral overlaps in the QMS during evolved gas analyses might limit precision or ac curacy. High precision isotope measurements of evolved gases are important for understanding past and present habitability of Enceladus. The TLS is a six-channel tunable laser absorp tion spectrometer. TLS comprises three main parts: the laser-detector assemblies, the multipass

Mass (1.9 kg), power (5 W maximum) and

2-30

ENCELADUS

sample cell, and the electronics. TLS can in corporate both near-IR tunable diode laser and quantum cascade laser sources operating continu ous-wave. The multipass sample cell is an all-alu minum structure with gold-on-chromium-on nickel aluminum mirrors in an athermal design configuration. Mirrors will be used in a Herriott cell configuration with a 10.2-m path length.
Resource Estimates

2.3.7 Matrices Relating instruments to science Goals The following tables describe the value of each proposed instrument for addressing the science goals. The value of each instrument for each goal is qualitatively scored from 1 to 10, with color coding (darker colors indicating greater value) to enhance readability. A weighted mean score for each instrument is also given, with weights of 4, 2, and 1 for Priority 1, 2, and 3 science goals, respec tively. Category 2 instruments, discussed above, are included in these tables: they are of potential value but were not included in the final strawman payloads due to mass, power, or other engineering constraints. The tables show that most broad science goals are addressed by multiple instruments, though the roles of individual instruments are generally unique. For instance the thermal mapper and vis ible mapper both are very valuable for address ing the goal of understanding cryovolcanism on Enceladus, but they address very different aspects of the phenomenon (surface morphology and plumes from the visible mapper vs. temperatures and heat flow from the thermal mapper). 2.4 science Evaluation of architecture trade space Table 2.4-1 lists all the possible mission config urations considered in this trade space study, with a brief assessment of science value. Orbiters, as well as a single flyby spacecraft, were considered, with the added possibility for sample return, and various lander-type options. The subsections below outline the reasons why some of this trade space was re moved from further consideration by the Science Definition Team, because of low science value, high risk, expected high cost, or other reasons. Missions removed from consideration are shaded, leaving the remaining trade space in white. 2.4.1 Mission configurations not chosen for detailed study 2.4.1.1 sample Return Sample return offers the possibility for high science return, enabling sophisticated analysis in Earth laboratories that is not possible onboard a robotic spacecraft. However, there are many risks and complications associated with sample return.

Mass (1.9 kg), power (5 W max) and volume (36x8x8 cm) are derived from the TLS in the SAM instrument suite on MSL. 2.3.6 Hard lander instruments (category 2) Hard lander instruments were considered briefly. These could provide valuable additional science if resources permitted. The most impor tant role of hard landers would be to establish a seismic network, either with multiple hard landers or in conjunction with the seismometer on a soft lander. Seismometers would be similar to those carried on the soft lander. The presence of two or three seismometers on the surface simultaneously would greatly enhance the ability to probe crustal structure and locate and characterize individual seismic events (see the discussion of the soft lander seismometer in Section 2.3.5.2). Doppler track ing of multiple hard landers from an Enceladus orbiter would also provide precise constraints on tidal flexing amplitudes at those locations, though this would not be possible from a Saturn orbiter because there would be only two tracking oppor tunities, eight days apart, each at the same point in the tidal cycle. A penetrator camera would also be valuable for understanding surface processes in the vicinity of the penetrator.
Resource Estimates

Seismometer mass (2.3 kg) and power (1 W) are assumed to be identical to that on the soft lander, derived from the Netlander SEIS instru ment. Camera mass (1.2 kg) and power (2 W) are derived from the camera on the Russian Mars 96 penetrators. The transponder needed for Doppler tracking was assumed to be part of the commu nications system, with no additional mass and power allocation.

2-31

ENCELADUS

table 2.3.7-1: Instruments considered for the Enceladus-O and Enceladus-OL mission concepts. The Enceladus orbiter instruments were identical for both of these studies except for the radar sounder, thus the two Enceladus orbiters are not listed separately.
instrument value Matrix for Enceladus orbiter + Enceladus lander (Enceladus-o, Enceladus-ol Cryovolcanism (Priority 2) Saturn System Interaction (Priority 3) Tidal Heating and Interior Structure (Priority 2) Composition (Priority 2)

Instrument

Mission Element

Thermal Mapper Near-IR Mapper Visible Mapper Laser Altimeter Radio Science Magnetometer GCMS Dust Micro-Analyzer RADAR Sounder UV Spectrometer Low Energy Plasma Analyzer Energetic Particle Spectrometer Lander Camera (two) Seismometer Radio Science Surface Chemistry Package Surface Ice Oxidant Detector LDMS Lander Magnetometer Tuneable Laser Spectrometer Penetrator Camera Radio Science Seismometer

Enc. Orbiter Enc. Orbiter Enc. Orbiter Enc. Orbiter Enc. Orbiter Enc. Orbiter Enc. Orbiter Enc. Orbiter Enc. Orbiter Enc. Orbiter Enc. Orbiter Enc. Orbiter Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Hard Lander Hard Lander Hard Lander

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y/N* N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N

8 7 6 8 8 7 8 8 6 3 2 2 4 5 5 9 8 9 6 7 4 5 5

2 7 4 2 2 2 8 8 4 5 6 6 5 3 2 9 7 8 3 6 5 2 3

9 5 8 5 4 3 7 8 7 6 5 5 5 6 4 6 5 5 3 4 5 4 6

5 3 9 7 6 2 2 1 6 0 0 0 4 8 5 2 0 0 4 0 4 5 8

9 3 7 9 9 8 3 3 8 2 0 0 4 9 5 2 0 0 7 0 4 5 9

0 5 6 0 0 6 8 6 0 7 9 9 1 0 0 7 7 7 3 5 1 0 0

2 5 8 4 1 1 5 4 5 3 4 6 8 4 1 7 7 7 0 6 6 1 4

*Included on Enceladus Orbiter mission, not on Orbiter+Lander mission 2-32

Weighted Mean Score 6.0 5.3 6.7 5.9 5.4 4.6 6.1 5.9 5.6 3.4 3.1 3.2 4.4 5.4 3.8 6.3 5.0 5.4 4.4 4.2 4.2 3.8 5.4

Included in Strawman Payload?

Tectonics (Priority 2)

Biological Potential (Priority 1)

Surface Processes (Priority 3)

ENCELADUS

table 2.3.7-2: Instruments considered for the Saturn-OL mission concept.

instrument value Matrix for saturn orbiter + Enceladus lander (saturn-ol) Included in Strawman Payload? Biological Potential (Priority 1) Surface Processes (Priority 3) 2 5 9 4 1 1 5 5 3 3 5 4 6 8 4 1 7 7 7 6 8 1 4

Cryovolcanism Priority 2)

Saturn System Interaction (Priority 3)

Tidal Heating and Interior Structure (Priority 2)

Composition (Priority 2)

Thermal Mapper Near-IR Mapper Visible Mapper Laser Altimeter Radio Science Magnetometer INGMS Dust Analyzer Framing Camera UV Spectrometer RADAR Sounder Low Energy Plasma Analyzer Energetic Particle Spectrometer Lander Camera (two) Seismometer Radio Science Surface Chemistry Package Surface Ice Oxidant Detector LDMS Tuneable Laser Spectrometer Penetrator Camera Radio Science Seismometer

Saturn Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Soft Lander Hard Lander Hard Lander Hard Lander

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N

7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 6 2 2 4 5 5 9 8 9 7 4 3 5

2 9 4 2 2 2 7 7 2 5 4 6 6 5 3 2 9 7 8 6 5 1 3

7 5 7 5 4 3 7 7 6 6 7 5 5 5 6 4 6 5 5 4 5 2 6

5 3 7 7 6 2 2 2 5 0 6 0 0 4 8 5 2 0 0 0 4 3 8

8 3 7 7 7 6 3 3 5 2 7 0 0 4 9 5 2 0 0 0 4 3 9

0 5 6 0 0 6 7 7 4 7 0 9 9 1 0 0 7 7 7 5 1 0 0

In its simplest form, a sample could be obtained during a single spacecraft flyby on a free return trajectory (i.e., one requiring no additional propul-

sive maneuvers to return to Earth). As detailed in Section 3, a free return trajectory takes approxi mately 13 years to reach Saturn and encounters

2-33

Weighted Mean Score 5.3 5.6 6.4 5.3 4.8 4.4 5.6 5.6 3.9 3.4 5.5 3.1 3.2 4.4 5.4 3.8 6.3 5.0 5.4 4.2 4.4 2.2 5.4

Tectonics (Priority 2)

Mission Element

Instrument

ENCELADUS

table 2.4-1: Configuration Trade Space (Rejected Options Grayed Out)

configuration only Incremental science return High science return Low science return Low science return base configuration + soft lander High science return Highest science return Low science return N/A base configuration + Hard lander(s) Seismic network adds value Seismic network adds value No way to return data No way to return data base configuration + dumb impactor Modest science return Modest science return Modest science return Low science return base configuration + Plume sample Return High potential science return High potential science return High potential science return High potential science return

Saturn Orbiter Enceladus Orbiter Single Flyby Lander Only

Enceladus with a relative velocity of ~7 km/s. This flyby speed would enable robust sample collec tion, comparable to the Stardust flyby velocity of ~6 km/s, well within the realm of current aerogel capture technology. However, the mission would require longevity of at least 26 years, and is high risk, with only one opportunity for a successful sample collection, and a relatively small amount of additional data obtained about Enceladus during the single flyby. Sample collection and return from Saturn orbit would be an option worth further in vestigation, and might possibly allow a faster flight time while keeping collection speed acceptable, though with greatly increased mission complexity. For any type of sample return, Earth return velocities are high unless more time-consuming inner solar system flybys are used to lower the ve locity, and capture techniques would require fur ther investigation. In addition, planetary protec tion must be carefully considered, because while cryogenic, preserved, samples would provide the best science return, they would also require guar anteed containment on landing/capture, quar antine and special precautions and handling on Earth (Planetary Protection Level V and Class IV Biohazard containment and quarantine). Thus, the overall risk, complexity and lifetime of sample return missions were deemed unacceptable for a Flagship-class mission at this time, despite their potential for high scientific return. 2.4.1.2 dumb impactors Kinetic or dumb impactors offer the oppor tunity to create a control plume away from the

south pole, for investigating compositional differ ences at various locations on the surface, for exam ple. They can also be useful for seismic sounding in conjunction with surface seismometers. However, large compositional differences are not expected elsewhere on the surface (which is coated with plume fallout and processed E-ring particles), and tidal flexing should generate sufficient seismic sig nals for internal sounding. Thus, this option was considered to be of low to modest scientific value. As dumb impactors require only basic technology, they do not require further investigation at this time and could be included if mass were available and if future scientific evaluation warranted their use. 2.4.1.3 saturn orbiter only (no landers) A well-equipped Saturn orbiter has scientific value, but does not meet the full science goals of an Enceladus-focused Flagship-class mission, par ticularly after the current Cassini mission. In par ticular, a Flagship-class mission should substantial ly increase our scientific knowledge of Enceladus, achieving all of the top priority science goals. A sin gle Saturn orbiter, with advanced instrumentation would provide multiple fast passes of Enceladus, but would have difficulty providing sufficient knowl edge of surface chemistry and interior structure to be deemed worthwhile as a Flagship mission. Results of the JPL-led study documented in Titan and Enceladus $1B Mission Feasibility Report, JPL D-37401 (Reh et al. 2007) can be used to evaluate the value of such a mission for a New Frontiers-class mission. The addition of a soft lander or a seismic network is sufficient to create a scientifically attrac tive mission, however, and was considered.

2-34

ENCELADUS

2.4.1.4 single Flyby Missions A single flyby mission, one where the spacecraft never enters Saturn orbit, but simply flies through the system and passes Enceladus once, has the advantage of being a relatively inexpensive and simple mission. However, it offers only one oppor tunity to observe Enceladus, while passing at high relative velocity. Even with the addition of landers or impactors, it would not allow sufficient science return for a Flagship-class mission, given that lit tle of the surface could be mapped in a single fast flyby. Adding a lander or impactors increases the knowledge that can be obtained through in-situ sampling and seismometry, however, the need for direct-to-earth communication with the lander after the flyby would be a further complication. 2.4.1.5 lander-only Missions In this configuration, there is no orbital com ponent, only a limited-life surface mission. While the surface science would be very compelling, par ticularly for a long-lived surface station, the lander would need to communicate directly with Earth, requiring substantial power and a large antenna. In addition, a single lander is high risk, given the dif ficulty of landing on unknown terrain, implying a significant chance of no science return; this is un acceptable for a Flagship-class mission. The science lost, such as surface mapping, by not having an orbital component also gives this mission lower value, and reduces the value of the lander science due to the lack of context. Additional hard impac tors have no simple way to return data to the lander and offer no additional value. A more scientifically valuable subset of this mission type is an Enceladus orbiter that lands after the end of an orbital phase. That mission would be of high scientific value and is considered under the Enceladus orbiter case. 2.4.6 Missions chosen for detailed study The science rationale for the three missions chosen for detailed study: Enceladus Orbit er plus Lander, Enceladus Orbiter only; and Saturn Orbiter plus Lander, are given in detail in Sections 3.3 to 3.5 of this report. Table 2.4.6-1 summarizes the science value of each of these mis sions and compares them to the science value of the Cassini extended mission. 2.5 Plume Particle sizes and abundances: Potential Hazards and sampling opportunities For Enceladus missions, the cryovolcanic south polar plume is both a golden opportunity for easy collection of interior samples, and a potential space craft hazard. Cassini data can be used to estimate the size of the hazard and the number of particles available for sampling, though uncertainties are large. Note that this analysis was done after the dust shielding design discussed in Section 3, so assumptions and results may differ in detail. The Cassini Cosmic Dust Analyzer (CDA) measured 10-7 particles/cm3 larger than 4-micron diameter in July 2005 passage through the edge of the plume (Spahn et al. 2006 ). This provides a strong lower limit to expected small particle flux es in the interior of the plume. Much higher den sities are expected near the plume source, where Cassini visible and near-IR images show abundant forward-scattering particles, but particle sizes and densities are difficult to determine uniquely from the remote sensing data, and analysis is still in progress. Neither the CDA, nor remote sensing instruments, are sensitive to large, potentially hazardous, particles (D > ~1mm); the abundance of such particles must be inferred indirectly. This analysis follows the approach developed by Dr. Larry Esposito (personal communication) for consideration of hazards to the Cassini space craft during future plume passages. He proposed that for theoretical reasons, total mass of plume particles (which are dominantly water ice) is un likely to exceed the mass of the water vapor in the plume, the column density of which has been measured quite accurately by the Cassini Ultra violet Imaging Spectrograph (UVIS) instrument, as 7 x 1015 molecules/cm2, or 2 x 10-7 g/cm2, in a tangent column at 100 km minimum altitude, comparable to likely spacecraft plume passages. The number of particles of a given diameter then depends on the assumed size/frequency distribu tion (a power law with differential exponent q is assumed), the ice/gas ratio, and the total range of particle sizes, which is determined by the physics of the particle production process. A q of 3 was measured by CDA in the few micron size range, though larger values (implying more small par ticles and fewer large ones) was inferred from the

2-35

table 2.4.6-1: This table summarizes the ability of the various mission options, including the extended Cassini mission, to address the science objectives. The relative ability of each mission to address each science objective is graded by a numerical score from 1-10, with 10 being best, and the reasoning behind the score is summarized in the associated text. The estimated overall science value of each mission option is also given. Individual and overall scores are necessarily subjective, but summarize the best judgment of the science definition team. Color-coding is used to enhance readability, with dark colors indicat ing higher scores.
science value of various Enceladus Mission options Enceladus-OL 10: Excellent probling of interior and plume source region: excellent bulk analysis of surface materials 7: Excellent probing of interior and plume source region, plume characterization 8: Adequate probing of interior and plume, excellent bulk analysis of surface materials 8: Excellent surface chemistry of bulk samples 9: good plume chemistry, excellent surface chemistry of bulk samples 6: good plume chemistry, lack of bulk samples limits quality of analysis 9 Low-speed plume sampling, extensive surface mapping and radar sounding (though limited in polar regions) 8: global mapping, tidal flexing, altimetry, radar sounding 8: Excellent on tidal deformation, gravity, topography, magnetic sounding 5: Good plume characterization, but no plasma instruments carried 7: Global hi-res mapping and composition Enceladus-O Saturn-OL Cassini Extended Mission 3: Improved plume analysis, and understanding of the plume source region from remote sensing 4 Improved plume sampling , limited by instrumentation

Science Objectives

Level 1: Biological Potential

Level 2: Composition

Level 2: Cryovolcanism

9 Low-speed plume sampling, extensive surface mapping and radar sounding (though limited in polar regions) 9: global mapping, tidal flexing, altimetry, surface seismometry 10: Excellent on tidal deformation, gravity, topography, magnetic sounding, excellent seismic sounding 5: Good plume characterization, but no plasma instruments carried 9: Close-up imaging and direct surface sampling 10 8

6: High-speed plume sampling and polar surface mapping 7: Orbital mapping with some limitations, surface seismometry 7: Adequate on tidal deformation, gravity, topograpy, poor on magnetic sounding, excellent seismic sounding 4: Good plume characterization (limited by high speed), but no plasma instruments carried 9: Close-up imaging and direct surface sampling 7

4: Improved remote sensing and in-situ sampling, limited by instrumentation and small number of flybys 3: limited hi-res coverage, little geophysics 2: Some improved knowledge of the gravity field and heat flow 4: Multiple passes with good plasma instumentation 2: Very limited hi-res remote sensing, improved knowledge of plume resurfacing 3

ENCELADUS

2-36

Level 2: Tectonics

Level 2: Tidal Heating and Interior Structure

Level 3: Saturn system interaction

Level 3: Surface Processes

Relative Science Value (subjective rating based on the above matrix)

ENCELADUS

plasma signature of particle impacts. Figure 2.5-1 shows the fluence of particles larger than a given size from a single plume passage at 100 km al titude, assuming a dust/gas ratio of 1.0 and a particle radius range or 0.1 1000 microns. For a 100 cm2 collection area, in this example, between one and several thousand plume particles larger than 10-micron diameter would be collected in one plume passage. The largest particle hitting a 10 m2 spacecraft could be larger than 1-mm di ameter, depending on the dust power law index, so shielding would be necessary if such particles were dangerous to the spacecraft.
104 # of Larger Particles cm-2 102 100 Rev.11 CDA 10-2 (PlumeEdge) 10-4 10-6 10-8 1 10 100 1000 Minimum Diameter, Microns 10000

EN072

Single Plume Passage, 100 km Altitude q=3 q=4 q=5 q=6 1 Particle Per 100 cm2 Detector 1 Particle Per 10 m2 Spacecraft

Figure 2.5-1: Expected fluence of plume particles from a single plume passage, assuming a particle diameter range between 0.2 and 2 microns and a dust/gas ratio of 1.0. Curves are shown for various plausible values of the differential size/frequency distribution power law index, q. The particle fluence measured by the Cassini CDA instrument on its single plume passage so far, on Rev. 11, is also shown: this is a strong lower limit to the expected fluence within the plume as the Rev. 11 flyby only skirted the edge of the plume.

2-37

ENCELADUS

2.6 References 1. Anderson, B.J., Acuna M.H., Lohr, D.A., Scheifele, J., Raval, A., Korth, H., Slavin J.A., 2007, The magnetometer instrument on MESSENGER, Space. Sci. Rev., in press. 2. Anderson, J.D., Schubert G., Jacobson R.A., Lau E.L., Moore W.B., Sjogren W.L. 1998. Europas differentiated internal structure: Inferences from four Galileo encounters. Science 281, 2019-2022. 3. Bada, J.L., Sephton, M.A., Ehrenfreund, P., Mathies, R.A., Skelley, A.M., Grunthaner, F.J., Zent, A.P., Quinn, R.C., Josset, J.L., Robert, F., Botta, O., and Glavin, D.P. 2005. New strategies to detect life on Mars. Astron. Geophys. 46, 26-27. 4. Barnash, A.N., Rathbun, J.A., Turtle, E.P., Squyres, S.W., 2006. Interactions between impact craters and tectonic fractures on Ence ladus. Am. Astron. Soc. Bull. 38, Abstract 24.06. 5. Barr, A. C. and W. B. McKinnon 2007. Con vection in Enceladus ice shell: Conditions for initiation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L09202, doi:10.1029/2006GL028799. 6. Bell, J.F. et al. 1993. Mars Exploration Rover Athena Panoramic Camera (Pancam) investigation. J. Geophys. Res. 108, DOI 10.1029/2003JE002070. 7. Blankenship, D.D. et al. 1999. Feasibility study and design concept for an orbiting icepenetrating radar sounder to characterize in three-dimensions the Europan ice mantle down to (and including) any ice/ocean inter face, Jet Propulsion Lab. Tech Report. 8. Bray, V. J., Smith, D.E., Turtle, E.P., Perry, J.E., Rathbun, J.A., Barnash, A.N., Helfen stein, P., Porco, C.C., 2007. Impact crater morphology variations on Enceladus. Lunar Planet. Sci. XXXVIII, Abstract 1873. 9. Brown, R. H. et al. 2005. The Cassini Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer (VIMS) Investigation. Space Sci. Rev. 115, 111. 10. Brown, R. H., R. L. Kirk, T. V. Johnson, L. A. Soderblom 1990. Energy sources for Tritons geyser-like plumes, Science 250, 431. 11. Brown, R. H.; Clark, R. N.; Buratti, B. J.; Cruikshank, D. P.; Barnes, J. W.; Mastrapa, R. M. E.; Bauer, J.; Newman, S.; Momary, T.; Baines, K. H.; Bellucci, G.; Capaccioni, F.; Cerroni, P.; Combes, M.; Coradini, A.; Drossart, P.; Formisano, V.; Jaumann, R.; Langevin, Y.; Matson, D. L.; McCord, T. B.; Nelson, R. M.; Nicholson, P. D.; Sicardy, B.; Sotin, C. 2006. Composition and Physical Properties of Enceladus Surface. Science 311, 1425-1428. 12. Buratti, B.J.; Mosher, J.A.; Johnson, T.V.; 1990. Albedo and color maps of the Satur nian satellites. Icarus 87, 339-357. 13. Buratti,, B.J., 1988. Enceladus - Implications of its unusual photometric properties. Icarus 75, 113-126. 14. Burch, J. L., Goldstein, J. Lewis, W.S., Young, D. T., Coates, A., Doughterty, M., Andre, N.; 2007. Tethys and Dione as sources of outward-flowing plasma in Saturns magne tosphere. Nature 447, 833-835. 15. Castillo, J. C., Matson, D. L., T. V. Johnson, J. Lunine 2006. Enceladus geysers A clue to hydrothermal activity at the surface of Enceladus. Astrobiology 6, 158. 16. Castillo-Rogez J.C., Matson D.L., Johnson T.V., Lunine J.I., Thomas P.C. 2007. Iapetus geophysics: rotation rate, shape and equato rial ridge Icarus, in press. 17. Cheng, A.F. et al. 2007. Long-range recon naissance imager on New Horizons. Space Science Reviews, in press. 18. Christensen, P.R., 11 colleagues, 2004. The Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS) for the Mars 2001 Odyssey Mis sion. Space Sci. Rev. 110, 85130. 19. Chyba C. 2000. Energy for microbial life on Europa 2000. Nature 406, 368-381? 20. Collins GC, Goodman JC. 2007. Enceladus south polar sea. Icarus 189, 72-82.

2-38

ENCELADUS

21. Dougherty, M.K., Khurana K.K., Neubauer, F.M., Russell, C.T., Saur, J., Leisner, J.S., Bur ton, M.E., 2006. Identification of a dynamic atmosphere at Enceladus with the Cassini magnetometer. Science 311, 1406-1409. 22. Dyson FJ. 1997. Warm-Blooded Plants and Freeze-Dried Fish. The Atlantic Monthly 280, 71-80. 23. Esposito, L.W. et al. 2005. Ultraviolet Imag ing Spectroscopy Shows an Active Saturnian System. Science 307, 1251. 24. Gaidos EJ, Nealson KH, Kirschvink JL. 1999. Biogeochemistry - Life in ice-covered oceans. Science 284, 1631-3. 25. Gold, R. E., S. C. Solomon,R. L. McNutt, Jr., A. G. Santo, J. B.Abshire, M. H. Acua, R. S.Afzal, B. J. Anderson, G. B. Andrews, P. D. Bedini, J. Cain, A. F. Cheng, L. G. Ev ans, R. B. Follas, G. Gloeckler, J. O. Gold sten, S. E. Hawkins III, N. R. Izenberg, S. E. Jaskulek, E. A. Ketchum, M. R. Lankton, D. A. Lohr, B. H. Mauk, W. E. McClintock, S. L. Murchie, C. E. Schlemm II, D. E. Smith, R. D. Starr, and T. H. Zurbuchen, 2000. The MESSENGER mission to Mercury: Scien tific payload, Planet. Sp. Sci. 26. Green, R.O., Pieters, C., Mouroulis, P., Sel lars, G., Eastwood, M., Geier, S., Shea, J. 2007. The Moon Mineralogy Mapper: Char acteristics and Early Laboratory Calibration Results, Proc. Lunar Planet. Sc. XXXVIII, March 12-16, League City, Texas, 1338. 27. Haff, P.K., G. L. Siscoe, and A. Eviatar 1983. Ring and plasma - The enigmae of Enceladus. Icarus 56, 426-438. 28. Hand KP, Chyba CF, Carlson RW, Cooper JF. 2006. Clathrate hydrates of oxidants in the ice shell of Europa. Astrobiology 6, 463 82. 29. Hansen, C.J., Esposito, L., Stewart, A.I.F., Colwell, J., Hendrix, A., Pryor, W., Shem ansky, D., West, R., 2006. Enceladus water vapor plume. Science 311, 1422-1425. 30. Helfenstein, P., P.C. Thomas, J. Veverka, J.A. Burns, T. Roatsch, B. Giese, R. Wagner, T. Denk, G. Neukum, E. Turtle, V. Bray, J. Perry, J. Rathbun, C.C. Porco, 2007. Patterns of Tectonism and Polar Wander on Encel adus, Icarus, submitted. 31. Helfenstein, P., Thomas, P.C., Veverka, J., Rathbun, J., Perry, J., Turtle, E., Denk, T., Neukum, G., Roatsch, T., Wagner, R., Giese, B., Squyres, S., Burns, J., McEwen, A., Porco, C., Johnson, T.V., ISS Science Team, 2006a. Patterns of fracture and tectonic convergence near the south pole of Enceladus. Lunar Planet. Sci. XXXVII. Abstract 2182. 32. Helfenstein, P., Thomas, P.C., Veverka, J., Porco, C., Giese, B., Wagner, R., Roatsch, T., Denk, T., Neukum, G., Turtle, E., 2006b. Surface geology and tectonism on Enceladus. Eos Trans. AGU 87(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract P22b-02. 33. Helfenstein, P., Thomas, P.C., Veverka, J., Squyres, S., Rathbun, J.A., Denk, T., Neu kum, G., Roatsch, T., Wagner, R., Perry, J., Turtle, E., McEwen, A.S., Johnson, T.V., Por co, C., Cassini ISS Team, 2005. Geological features and terrains on Enceladus as seen by Cassini ISS. Am. Astron. Soc. Bull. 37. Ab stract 36.01. 34. Hurford, T.A., Helfenstein, P., Greenberg, R., Hoppa, G.V., 2007a. A cycloid-like rift near Enceladus South Pole: Europa-style production by tidal stress. Lunar Planet. Sci. XXXVIII. Abstract 1844. 35. Hurford TA, Helfenstein P, Hoppa GV, Greenberg R, Bills BG. 2007b. Eruptions arising from tidally controlled periodic open ings of rifts on Enceladus. Nature 447: 292 4. 36. Kargel, J., Enceladus: Cosmic gymnast, volatile miniworld. Science 311, 1389-1391, 2006. 37. Kargel, J.S., Pozio, S., 1996. The volcanic and tectonic history of Enceladus. Icarus 119, 385-404. 38. Kieffer, S. W.; Lu, X.; Bethke, C. M.; Spen cer, J.R.; Marshak, S.; Navrotsky, A.; 2006. A Clathrate Reservoir Hypothesis for Enceladus South Polar Plume, Science 314, 1764.

2-39

ENCELADUS

39. Kirschvink JL, Weiss BP. 2002. Mars, pan spermia, and the origin of life: Where did it all begin? Palaeontologia Electronica 4: edito rial 2: 8p. 40. Kovach, R.L., Chyba C.F. 2001. Seismic de tectability of a subsurface ocean on Europa, Icarus 150, 279-287. 41. Lee, S.W., Zanolin, M., Thode, A.M., Pap palardo, R.T., Makris N.C. 2003. Probing Europas interior with natural sound sources. Icarus 165, 144-167. 42. Lodders, K. 2003. Solar system abundances and condensation temperatures of the ele ments, Astrophys. J. 591, 1220-1247. 43. Lognonne, P. et al. 2000. The NetLander very broad band seismometer, Planet, Space Sci. 48, 1289-1302. 44. Manohara, H.M., M.J. Bronikowski, M. Hoenk, B.D. Hunt, P.H. Siegel 2005. Highcurrent-density field emitters based on arrays of carbon nanotube bundles, Journal of Vac uum Science and Technology B 23, 157-161. 45. Matson DL, Castillo JC, Lunine J, Johnson TV. 2007. Enceladus plume: Compositional evidence for a hot interior, Icarus 187, 569 73. 46. McKinnon, W. B. Mystery of Callisto: Is it undifferentiated? Icarus 130, 540-543, 1997. 47. Mix, L.J. et al. 2006. The Astrobiology prim er: an outline of general knowledge, Astrobi ology 6, 735-813. 48. Moore, W.B., Schubert G., 2000. The tidal response of Europa, Icarus 147, 317-319. 49. Morrison, D., Owen, T., Soderblom, L.A., 1986. The satellites of Saturn. In: Burns, J.A., Matthews, M.S. (Eds.), Satellites, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 764-801. 50. Mouroulis P, Green RO, Chrien TG 2000. Design of push-broom imaging spectrometers for optimum recovery of spectroscopic and spatial information, Applied Opt. 39,13). 51. Mueller, S. and W. B. McKinnon 1988. Three-layered models of Ganymede and Callisto Compositions, structures, and as pects of evolution, Icarus 76 437-464. 52. Neumann, G.A., Rowlands, D.D., Lemoine, F.G., Smith, D.E., Zuber, M.T. 2001. Cross over analysis of Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter data, J. Geophys. Res. 106, 23753-23768. 53. Newman, Sarah; Buratti, B. J.; Brown, R. H.; Jaumann, R.; Bauer, J.; Momary, T. 2007. Photometric and spectral analysis of the dis tribution of crystalline and amorphous ices on Enceladus as seen by Cassini, Icarus, accepted. 54. Niemann, H.B. and 17 co-authors, 2005. The abundance of constituents of Titans at mosphere from the GCMS instrument on the Huygens probe, Nature 438, 779-784. 55. Niemann, H.B., Atreya, S.K., Bauer, S.J., Biemann, K., Block, B., Carignan, G.R., Do nahue, T.M., Frost, R.L., Gautier, D., Haber man, J.A., Harpold, D., Hunten, D.M., Isra el, G., Lunine, J.I., Mauersberger, K., Owen, T.C., Raulin, F., Richards, J.E., and Way, S.H. 2002. The Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer for the Huygens Probe, Space Sci. Rev. 104, 553-591. 56. Nimmo F, Spencer JR, Pappalardo RT, Mullen ME. 2007. Shear heating as the ori gin of the plumes and heat flux on Enceladus, Nature 447, 289-91. 57. Nimmo, F. and Pappalardo, R.T. 2006. Dia pir-induced reorientation of Saturns moon Enceladus, Nature 441, 614-616. 58. Nimmo, F., Schenk, P., 2006. Normal fault ing on Europa: Implications for ice shell properties, J. Struct. Geol. 28, 2194-2203. 59. NRC 2003. New frontiers in the solar sys tem: an integrated exploration strategy. Tech nical report, Space studies board, National Research Council, Washington DC. 60. Panning, M., Lekic, V., Manga, M., Cam marano, F., Romanowicz, B., Long-period seismology on Europa: 2. Predicted seismic response, J. Geophys. Res. 111, E12008.

2-40

ENCELADUS

61. Parkinson CD, Liang MC, Hartman H, Hansen CJ, Tinetti G, et al. 2007. Enceladus: Cassini observations and implications for the search for life. Astronomy & Astrophysics 463: 353-7. 62. Passey, Q. 1983. Viscosity of the lithosphere of Enceladus. Icarus 53, 105-120. 63. Porco, C. C. Helfenstein, P.; Thomas, P. C.; Ingersoll, A. P.; Wisdom, J.; West, R.; Neu kum, G.; Denk, T.; Wagner, R.; Roatsch, T.; Kieffer, S.; Turtle, E.; McEwen, A.; Johnson, T. V.; Rathbun, J.; Veverka, J.; Wilson, D.; Perry, J.; Spitale, J.; Brahic, A.; Burns, J. A.; DelGenio, A. D.; Dones, L.; Murray, C. D.; Squyres, S., 2006. Cassini observes the active South Pole of Enceladus. Science 311, 1393 1401. 64. Rathbun, J.A., Turtle, E.P., Helfenstein, P., Squyres, S.W., Thomas, P., Veverka, J., Denk, T., Neukum, G., Roatsch, T., Wagner, R., Perry, J., Smith, D., Johnson, T.V., Porco, C.C., 2005. Enceladus global geology as seen by Cassini ISS. Eos Trans. AGU 86(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract P32A-03. 65. Reh, K., J. Elliot, T. Spilker, E. Jorgensen, J. Spencer, and R. Lorenz 2007. Titan and Enceladus $1B Mission Feasibility Study Re port. JPL D-37401B. 66. Reuter, D.C., Stern, S.A., Scherrer, J., Jen nings, D.E., Baer, J., Hanley, J., Hardaway, L., A. Lunsford, S. McMuldroch, J, Moore, C. Olkin, R. Parizek, H. Reitsma, D. Sa batke, J. Spencer, J. Stone, H. Throop, J. Van Cleve, G. E. Weigle and L. A.Young, Ralph: A Visible/Infrared Imager for the New Hori zons Pluto/Kuiper Belt Mission, Astrobiology and Planetary Missions. Edited by Hoover, Richard B.; Levin, Gilbert V.; Rozanov, Alex ei Y.; Gladstone, G. Randall 2005. Proc. of the SPIE, 5906, pp. 433-443. 67. Ross, M. N. and G. Schubert 1989, Visco elastic Models of Tidal Heating in Enceladus. Icarus 78, 90-101. 68. Schenk, P. M. and Moore, J. M. 2007, Im pact Crater Topography and Morphology on Saturnian Mid-Sized Satellites. Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVIII, Contribution No. 1338, p.2305. 69. Schenk, P., Seddio, S., 2006. Geologic and cratering history of Enceladus. Am. Astron. Soc. Bull. 38. Abstract 18.01. 70. Schubert, G., J. D. Anderson, B. T. Travis, J. Palguta 2007. Enceladus: Present internal structure and differentiation by early and long-term radiogenic heating. Icarus 188, 345-355. 71. Shemansky, D.E., Matherson, P., Hall, D.T., and Tripp, T.M. 1993. Nature 363, 329. 72. Showman, A.P., Stevenson D.J., Malhotra R. 1997. Coupled orbital and thermal evolution of Ganymede. Icarus 129, 367-383. 73. Skelley, A.M., Cleaves, H.J., Jayarajah, C.N., Bada, J.L., and Mathies, R.A. 2006, Applica tion of the Mars Organic Analyzer to nucleo base and amine biomarker detection. Astro biology 6, 824-837. 74. Smith, B. A. et al. 1986. Voyager 2 in the Uranian system: Imaging Science Results, Science 233, 43-64. 75. Smith, B.A. et al. 1982. A new look at the Saturn system: The Voyager 2 images, Science 215, 504-537. 76. Smith, D. E.; Turtle, E. P.; Melosh, H. J.; Bray, V. J. 2007. Viscous Relaxation of Cra ters on Enceladus, Lunar and Planet, Science XXXVIII, 2237. 77. Smith, D.E. et al. 2001, Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter: Experiment summary after the first year of global mapping of Mars, J. Geo phys. Res. 106, 23689-23722. 78. Smith, D.E., Zuber, M.T., Neumann, G.A., Lemoine, F.G., Robinson, M.S., Aharonson, O., Head, J.W., Sun, X., Cavanaugh, J.F., Jackson, G.B., 2006. The Lunar Orbiter La ser Altimeter (LOLA) on the Lunar Recon naissance Orbiter. EOS Trans. AGU, U41C 0826. 79. Spahn et al. 2006, Cassini dust measure ments at Enceladus and Implications for the origin of the E-ring. Science 311, 1416-1418.

2-41

ENCELADUS

80. Spencer, J. R., J. C. Pearl, M. Segura, F. M. Flasar, A. Mamoutkine, P. Romani, B. J. Bu ratti, A. R. Hendrix, L. J. Spilker, R. M. C. Lopes 2006. Cassini Encounters Enceladus: Background and the Discovery of a South Polar Hot Spot. Science 311, 1401-1405. 81. Squyres SW, Reynolds RT, Cassen PM, Peale SJ. 1983. Liquid Water and Active Resurfac ing on Europa Nature 301, 225-6. 82. Srama R. et al. 2006. Planet, Space Science 54,967-987. 83. Stephan, K.; Jaumann, R.; Hansen, G. B.; Clark, R. N.; Buratti, B. J.; Brown, R. H.; Baines, K. H.; Bellucci, G.; Coradini, A.; Cruikshank, D. P.; Griffiths, C. A.; Hib bitts, C. A.; McCord, T. B.; Nelson, R. M.; Nicholson, P. D.; Sotin, C.; Wagner, R. 2007. Distribution of Icy Particles Across Encel adus Surface as Derived from Cassini-VIMS Measurements. Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVIII), Contribution No. 1338, p.1747. 84. Stern, S. A. et al. 2007. ALICE: The Ultra violet Imaging Spectrograph aboard the New Horizons Pluto-Kuiper Belt Mission, Space Science Reviews, in press. 85. Thomas, P. C., J. Burns, P. Helfenstein, S. Squyres, J. Veverka, C. Porco, E. P. Turtle, A. McEwen, T. Denk, B. Giese, T. Roatsch, T. V. Johnson, R. A. Jacobson 2007, Shapes of the saturnian icy satellites and their signifi cance. Icarus, in press. 86. Tian, F., A.I.F. Stewart, O.B. Toon, K.M. Larsen, L.W. Esposito 2006, Monte Carlo simulations of the water vapor plumes on Enceladus, Icarus 188, 154-161. 87. Townes, S.A. and 19 co-authors, 2004. The Mars Laser Communication Demonstration, IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings, vol. 2, pp. 1180-1195. 88. Verbiscer, A. J.; Veverka, J. 1994. A photo metric study of Enceladus. Icarus 110, 155 164. 89. Verbiscer, A. J.; Peterson, Dawn E.; Skrutskie, Michael F.; Cushing, Michael; Helfenstein, Paul; Nelson, Matthew J.; Smith, J. D.; Wil son, John C. 2006. Near-infrared spectra of the leading and trailing hemispheres of Enceladus, Icarus 182, 211-223. 90. Verbiscer, A.; French, R.; Showalter, M.; Helf enstein, P.; 2007. Enceladus: Cosmic Graffiti Artist Caught in the Act, Science 315, 815. 91. Wahr, J.M., Zuber, M.T., Smith, D.E., Lu nine, J.I., 2006. Tides on Europa and the thickness of Europas icy shell, J. Geophys. Res. 111, doi:10.1029/2006JE002729. 92. Waite JH et al. 2004. Space Science Rev. 114, 113-231. 93. Waite, J.H., Combi, M.R., Ip, W-H., Cravens, T.E., McNutt, R.E., Kasprzak, W., Yelle, R., Luhmann, J., Niemann, H., Gell, D., Magee, B., Fletcher, G., Lunine J., and Tseng,W-L. 2006. Cassini Ion and neutral gas mass spec trometer: Enceladus plume composition and structure, Science 311, 1419-1422. 94. Webster, C.R., Sander, S.P., Beer, R., May, R.D., Knollenberg, R.G., Hunten, D.M., and Ballard, J. 1990. Tunable diode laser infrared spectrometer for in-situ measurements of the gas phase composition and particle size dis tribution of Titans atmosphere, Appl. Opt. 29, 907-917. 95. Williams, D. J., R. W. McEntire, C. Sch lemm II, A. T. Y. Lui, G. Gloeckler, S. P. Christon, and F. Gliem, Geotail energetic particles and ion composition instrument, J. Geomag. Geoelect., 46, 39-57, 1994. 96. Zimmer, C., Khurana, K.K., Kivelson, M.G., 2000. Subsurface oceans on Europa and Cal listo: Constraints from Galileo magnetometer observations, Icarus 147, 329-347, 2000.

2-42

ENCELADUS

3.0 Mission Architecture AssessMent 3.1 technical Approach As this is the first flagship mission architecture design study to evaluate methods for conducting scientific investigations at Enceladus, the solution space is quite broad and includes a number of candidate approaches. The approach used in this study was to conduct mission architecture designs on a few key points in that solution space and then to apply the knowledge gained to provide insight into some of the remaining points. This approach is consistent with remaining in Phase I, and at the architecture level of detail, under the Study Groundrules and was selected to maximize coverage across the solution space rather than to identify a single preferred mission concept for de tailed investigation. Before commencing mission concept design work, the mission design team performed risk re duction and fact finding studies. These studies are described in Section 3.1.1, and focused principal ly on the flight dynamics of getting to Saturn and orbiting Enceladus for a range of flight segment mass constraints. The team also consulted with experts from other NASA centers and the Depart ment of Energy (DOE) to examine the use of:

was limited by study Study Groundrules to Delta IV Heavy (4050H) or Atlas V 501 - 551 vehicles. 3.1.1 risk reduction / Fact Finding Activities 3.1.1.1 Key challenges to studying enceladus Missions to study Enceladus present some key challenges. Some are common to any mission to Saturn, and others are unique to the study of Enceladus. Those common to any mission to Saturn include designing a trajectory that will deliver the spacecraft to the Saturn system in a reasonable amount of time and with a reasonable amount of payload. Those unique to Enceladus include the large DV required once in the Saturn system to either orbit or land on Enceladus. Al ternatively, they include methods to mitigate that large DV at the expense of adding to mission dura tion and life cycle cost. They also include meth ods to protect the spacecraft while it samples the plume near the Enceladus south pole. Addition ally, planetary protection considerations become important not only for disposal of landers left on Enceladus, but also for orbiters which may impact Enceladus. The same is potentially true for boost ers which separate between Titan and Enceladus and which may impact other icy moons within the Saturn system. Risk reduction analyses were conducted prior to initiating mission architecture design studies to help address some of these challenges. These analyses included: a) evaluation of inner planet gravity assists enroute to Saturn, b) the use of Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) as well as chemi cal propulsion trajectories, c) the use of Saturn moons between Titan and Enceladus and aerocapture to reduce the DV required to either orbit or land on Enceladus, d) the viability of a freereturn trajectory for a sample return mission, and e) requirements for debris shielding. The evaluation of these risks identified further considerations. The use of gravity assists at Venus drives the spacecraft thermal system, and the use of gravity assists at Earth with a spacecraft that uses a radioisotope power supply imposes special safety constraints. Also, the extended duration between launch and the start of science operations result ing from the use of multiple gravity assists drives mission reliability. Additionally, for architectures that include orbiting Enceladus (a small moon), the characterization of the gravitational field of Enceladus is a challenge as many of the orbits
3-1

solar electric and chemical propulsion trajectories aerocapture to reduce DV requirements debris shielding radioisotope power systems

The team then conducted three mission point design studies (see Section 3.2), using the NASA/GSFC Integrated Mission Design Center (IMDC). The IMDC provides specific engineer ing analyses and services for mission design and provides end-to-end mission design products and parametric cost estimates. A reserve of 30% on mass, power, and data volume was held for each mission architecture concept. Propellant require ments were determined based on a dry mass that includes 30% reserve and on a DV that includes 10% reserve on maneuvers. An additional DV reserve of 500 m/s was held for Enceladus-OL and Enceladus-O concepts. With the exception of the Saturn-OL lander, all flight segment ele ments are designed to be single fault tolerant to credible failures. The selection of launch vehicles

ENCELADUS

about Enceladus are significantly perturbed by the size and proximity of Saturn. The internal density variations of Enceladus and their impact on orbit stability will not be well understood until an orbiter arrives at Enceladus. And, a landing on Enceladus must be able to be conducted in a fully autonomous manner, which means the lander must be able to identify and react to surface haz ards as it approaches the surface. 3.1.1.2 trajectory Work A direct trajectory from Earth to Saturn (about 1.4 billion km, or 9.6 AU, from the Sun) requires a C3 from the launch vehicle of 105.9 km2/s2. The total lift capability of the largest launch ve hicles identified in the study Study Groundrules to this C3 is under 500 kg. As this capability is well below that required for this mission, other techniques are required to define a trajectory that can deliver a capable mission to Enceladus. Basic planetary and natural satellite data are shown in Appendix C. 3.1.1.2.1 Gravity Assists to saturn Gravity assists using other planets can be used to provide the needed velocity to get to Saturn at the cost of additional mission time. Two ap proaches for gravity assists to Saturn were selected for this study. The first uses a single Earth flyby in conjunction with SEP. The second uses a much lengthier Venus-to-Venus-to-Earth-to-Earth-toSaturn (VVEES) trajectory in conjunction with chemical propulsion. 3.1.1.2.1.1 seP trajectories With assistance from NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC), the team considered a number of SEP parameters when evaluating candidate tra jectories, including the number of operating ion engines (1, 2, or 3) + 1 redundant engine, the solar array power available (20, 25, 30, and 35 kW), the desired transit time to Saturn (6.5, 7.0, and 7.5 years), the Earth flyby altitude (1000 km or 2000 km), the net mass delivered to the vicinity of Saturn (not into Saturn orbit), and the system size. The configuration selected for study was the 3+1, 25 kW SEP module with a 7.5 year transit time and a 1000 km Earth flyby. In this trajectory, the spacecraft departs Earth in March 2018 into a heliocentric orbit as shown in Figure 3.1.1-1. The SEP module thrusts al most continuously to increase the apoapsis of this heliocentric orbit beyond the radius of the Mars orbit. Approximately two years after launch, the spacecraft executes a single flyby of Earth with the SEP module still providing thrust. The amount of thrust varies, as solar power varies with distance from the Sun. Once power drops below the point where the SEP is effective (occurs in early 2021, 1024 days after launch), the SEP module is jet tisoned.

Earth Orbit Mars Orbit Jupiter Orbit Saturn Orbit SEP trajectory Keplerian Coast
EN001

Figure 3.1.1-1: Solar Electric Propulsion Trajectory with Earth Gravity Assist 3.1.1.2.1.2 chemical Propulsion trajectories The most promising trajectories for this study for designs using all-chemical propulsion involve VVEES cases in 2018, 2020, 2021 and 2023 and VEES cases in 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2022, and 2023. VEES trajectories were discounted due to their higher C3 requirements. Figure 3.1.1-2 depicts the VVEES trajectory used for the two all-chemical propulsion mission design cases studied. The intermediate period between con secutive Earth flybys is about four years, and the period between consecutive Venus flybys is about one year. It is worth noting that while a Venus to-Earth-to-Earth-to-Jupiter-to-Saturn (VEEJS) trajectory becomes available in 2015, it was not used for this study as there was no practical back up launch opportunity. With the synodic period between Jupiter and Saturn being 19.8 years, the next launch opportunity for this trajectory oc curs in 2035. Gravity assist trajectories that end at Jupiter (e.g,. VEEJ) were discounted due to the high DV required from a deep space maneuver to continue on to Saturn.
3-2

ENCELADUS

Earth Earth Mars Jupiter Mars Saturn

Venus

EN002

Figure 3.1.1-2: Chemical Propulsion Trajectory with Multiple Venus and Earth Gravity Assists Specific altitudes and timing of the inner plan et flybys along with the launch window consider ations are discussed in Section 3.3.3.1.1. 3.1.1.2.2 saturn orbit insertion and Gravity Assists within the saturn system For this study, a Saturn capture approach simi lar to that of the Cassini mission was employed, i.e., to approach Saturn as closely as possible from the interplanetary trajectory for maximum gravity assist. In general, the most efficient cap ture scenario involves applying a deceleration at periapsis to capture to as high an apoapsis as is practical (see Figure 3.1.1-3). Often a modest acceleration is applied at apoapsis to raise periap sis to some convenient distance. In support of the navigation, the mission uses ranging on all DSN contacts. Delta Differenced One-Way Rang ing (DDOR) and optical navigation using the science instruments (not used during propulsive events) are used to refine the targeting maneuvers for the gravity assists. Updated spacecraft and natural satellite ephemerides will be uploaded as needed, based on new solutions propagated on the ground to reduce targeting uncertainties. In general, this approach tends to optimize ef ficiency by minimizing the capture DV needed at both periapsis and apoapsis. For the Cassini mis sion, this approach was employed with the addiTitan Encounter - 1 SOI-1 Capture Burn Post-SOI Pre-SOI Inbound Post-Apoapsis

SOI-2 Apoapsis Burn

EN004

Figure 3.1.1-3: Approach and Saturn Capture Sequence for Enceladus Mission tion of a few small burns to target an encounter with the moon Titan, the destination of the se quence. A similar approach is used for the Enceladus mission. Further, since the only moon of any ap preciable size in the Saturn system is Titan, Titan is the destination of the capture sequence. The differences for the Enceladus mission lie in the small interim maneuvers used to target the Titan encounter. The Enceladus-O and Enceladus-OL mission designs used an approach radius of 82,000 km
3-3

ENCELADUS

(very similar to Cassini) to reduce the DV required for Saturn orbit insertion (SOI). The Saturn-OL mission design used a more conservative approach radius of 210,000 km. In each case, the space craft coasts to apoapsis and performs a second maneuver to raise periapsis to target Titan and to settle the spacecraft into the plane of the Saturn system. Allowance is made in the DV budget for the likelihood of a small targeting burn after this second maneuver to insure the desired encounter with Titan occurs. From there, a series of four gravity assist passes (see Figure 3.1.1-4) at Titan reduce the apoapsis of the Saturn orbit from about 204 Saturn radii to an orbit with a 16:31 resonance with Titan; that is to say the spacecraft orbital period is 16/31 of the Titan orbital period (or alternatively, for every 31 spacecraft orbits there are 16 Titan or bits). In this way, over the time the spacecraft has executed one complete orbit of Saturn, Titan will have completed two orbits and be back in position for the next gravity assist. This process is repeated from the 2:1 resonance to a 1:1 resonance to a 2:3 resonance down to a 16:31 resonance with the periods shown below. This last orbit is important since it is not only in a 16:31 resonance with Titan, but also is in 02:01 orbit 01:01 orbit 02:03 orbit 16:31 orbit
Post Apoapsis

very nearly a 6:1 resonance with Enceladus. Set ting apoapsis outside the Titan orbit radius and periapsis slightly outside the Enceladus orbit ra dius in this resonance means that both Titan and Enceladus are accessible during subsequent orbits; Titan for gravity assists and Enceladus for scien tific observations. At this point, the spacecraft is in a 1.31 x 106 km x 257 x 103 km orbit about Saturn with a period of 8.22 days. This places periapsis higher than the Enceladus orbit radius of 238 x 103 km. In this orbit, the relative locations of Enceladus and the spacecraft remain constant, but Enceladus is not yet in the vicinity of the spacecraft at space craft periapsis. Next, a small burn is performed which reduces periapsis and causes the orbit to lose resonance with both Enceladus and Titan. Being slightly out of resonance, the relative po sition of Enceladus at spacecraft periapsis be gins to drift. This condition is maintained until Enceladus moves into a position where it can be targeted. Another small burn is then performed to put the spacecraft on a path that will encounter Enceladus at an altitude of approximately 200 km for the start of the mapping flybys. At that time, apoapsis is raised to approximately 1.33 x 106 km, which restores resonance between the spacecraft and both Enceladus and Titan, and the mapping

Period = 31.89 days Period = 15.94 days Period = 10.63 days Period = 8.22 days

Titan Orbit

2:1 Orbit 1:1 Orbit 2:3 Orbit

Enceladus Orbit

16:31 Orbit

Period = 8.22 Day 16:31 Titan Resonance 6:1 Enceladus Resonanace

EN005

Figure 3.1.1-4: Multiple Resonant Orbits for Titan and Titan/Enceladus

3-4

ENCELADUS

flybys are initiated. The velocity at periapsis in this 8.22 day mapping orbit is ~16.4 km/s, which means the velocity relative to the Enceladus circu lar orbit velocity (~12.6 km/s) is about 3.8 km/s. In order to orbit Enceladus (or to land), this relative velocity must be cancelled. With chemi cal propulsion, this requires significant propellant mass. Another method exists, however, in using Saturns lesser moons (Rhea, Dione, Tethys) be tween Titan and Enceladus to reduce orbit en ergy. Figure 3.1.1-5 shows these moons within the Saturn system. The Enceladus-O mission design uses a gravity assist from Rhea, and the Enceladus-OL mission design uses gravity assists from both Rhea and Dione. In both the Enceladus-O and Enceladus-OL missions, Titan flybys lower periapsis to Rhea, instead of to Enceladus. Flybys of Rhea lower the apoapsis (initially at Titan) such that it becomes periapsis at either Enceladus (for Enceladus-O) or Dione (for Enceladus-OL). Figures 3.1.1-6A and 3.1.1-6B depict this sequence for Enceladus-OL. In the former case (Enceladus-O), circularizing at Enceladus from the Rhea/Enceladus elliptical orbit saves a DV of ~1.6 km/s at a cost of 2.5 ad ditional years of mission time. In the latter case (Enceladus-OL), the walkdown is continued as flybys at Dione lower apoapsis (initially at Rhea) to become periapsis at Enceladus. Circularizing at Enceladus from the Dione/Enceladus elliptical orbit saves a total DV of ~2.1 km/s at a cost of add ing one additional year (relative to the 2.5 years added by using Rhea). Alternatively, when in the Rhea/Dione elliptical orbit, the walkdown could be continued using Tethys before circularizing at Enceladus to save another ~0.4 km/s at a cost of an additional 1.5 years. In Figures 3.1.1-6A and 3.1.1.6B, the color coding is as indicated in Figure 3.1.1-5. 3.1.1.2.3 Free return trajectories A sample return mission that used a free re turn to Earth was evaluated. It included one pass by Saturn and through the Enceladus plume in such a way that the spacecraft is put on a path that

Enceladus Tethys Dione Rhea

Titan

EN007

Figure 3.1.1-5: Key Moons in the Saturn System between Titan and Enceladus
3-5

ENCELADUS

Dione Teth ys

Rhea Enceladus

Dione

Enceladus

EN008

Figure 3.1.1-6A: Using Gravity Assist at Rhea to Set Periapsis at Dione Figure 3.1.1-6B: Using Gravity Assist at Dione to Set Periapsis at Enceladus returns it directly to Earth. Assuming apoapsis of the transfer ellipse out to Saturn is further from the Sun than Saturn, there are four possible encoun ter strategies (for the Hohmann transfer case, this reduces to two). For Type I encounters, where the spacecraft encounters the planet before it reaches heliocentric apoapsis, the spacecraft can pass either in front of or behind the planet. The same two op tions exist for the Type II encounter, where the spacecraft encounters the planet after it reaches he liocentric apoapsis. Of these four possibilities, only two provide a possible free return to Earth. The only realistic possibility of a free return mission (the third of four cases) is depicted in Figures 3.1.1-7A and B, but it takes approximately 25.4 years which is likely to be unacceptably long. The Enceladus encounter happens in the same di rection as Enceladus orbital motion, resulting in an acceptable relative velocity of 6.86 km/s. The trajectory takes as long to return to the vicinity of Earth as it took to travel to Saturn, approximately 12.7 years. Upon arrival at Earth, the Vhp (the hy perbolic excess velocity on arrival at the planet, in this case Earth) is about 10.7 km/s, which trans lates to a velocity of about 15.4 km/s (neglecting the relative velocity of the atmosphere due to the Earths rotation) if an Earth periapsis radius of 190 km altitude were targeted. As a point of refer ence, the Stardust sample return capsule entered Earths atmosphere at 12.9 km/s. Analysis to opti mize the entry trajectory was not performed. The other possible free return trajectory re quires the spacecraft to encounter Enceladus in the opposite direction from Enceladus orbit. This results in an encounter speed of over 32 km/s, far above the maximum of 10 km/s set by the antici pated capability of the aerogel that would be used to capture plume particles from Enceladus. Sample return missions were not investigated further. The long mission lifetime and the single opportunity for sample collection were the prin cipal reasons making this option significantly less attractive than others. 3.1.1.3 Aerocapture With assistance from NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), the Enceladus team evaluated aerocapture as a method to achieve some of the DV reduction needed in approaching Enceladus from an orbit about Saturn. The team evaluated what orbital DVs could be affected by aerocap ture, how aerocapture compared to using chemical propulsion to reduce DV, and other considerations involved.
3-6

ENCELADUS

case 3:
Post Encounter

Type II Transfer, Pass in Front Saturn

Pre-Encounter

V HP in Earth Orbit Saturn Orbit

Enceladus Orbit

V HP out

Saturn Orbit

Encounter

Sun
EN010

Figure 3.1.1-7A: Case 3 Trajectory in the Heliocentric Frame Figure 3.1.1-7B: Case 3 Encounter in the Saturn Centered Frame There are two bodies in the Saturn system with enough atmosphere to permit aerocapture. One of these is Saturn itself and the other is Titan. Using Saturn on arrival (Options I and II in Figures 3.1.1-8A and 3.1.1-8B, respectively) requires entering the atmosphere to slow the spacecraft down enough to enter into orbit about Saturn. If the spacecraft is to enter into a Saturn orbit with a high apoapsis (Option I), which minimizes the DV required to raise periapsis to Enceladus, aerocapture (denoted by yellow dot) using Saturn must reduce spacecraft velocity by about 1 km/s. A single Saturn flyby is used to avoid hazards associated with multiple ring plane crossings. A DV burn (denoted by a red dot) at apoapsis would be needed to raise periapsis to the Enceladus radius. An additional DV burn to reduce apoapsis would be needed to circularize at the Enceladus radius. If instead, an apoapsis near Titan is desired (Option II), which makes Titan available for subsequent gravity assists or aerocapture, a velocity reduction of 1.7 km/s is needed from Saturn. A DV burn would be needed to raise periapsis to the Enceladus radius. Additionally, a DV burn would be needed to circularize at Enceladus. Figures 3.1.1-9A and 3.1.1-9B illustrate the use of Titans atmosphere for aerocapture upon arrival. Option III shows an approach that targets periapsis at Enceladus. A DV burn would be needed to lower apoapsis from the Titan radius to cir cularize at the Enceladus radius. Option IV shows an approach that targets periapsis at Saturn, and then uses Saturn aerocapture to target apoapsis at Enceladus. A DV burn would be needed to raise periapsis to circularize at the Enceladus radius. The results of this study show using aerocapture at either Saturn or Titan can potentially save from 1 - 1.7 km/s. The orbits that could be achieved ei ther have apoapsis near Titan and periapsis near Enceladus, or apoapsis near Enceladus and periapsis near Saturn. The additional DV required for each of these cases is on the order of 4 km/s to ei ther orbit or land on Enceladus. Previous studies (ref. (a)) have shown an aeroshell can add about 40% to the dry mass of the vehicle. Since the aeroshell would be jettisoned prior to conducting any large DV burns, use of an aeroshell could provide an overall mass savings through reduc ing required propellant. This savings diminishes as the remaining DV required from the propul sion system decreases. Based on discussions with NASA/LaRC, these mass benefits are balanced by increases in design and operational complexity, as spacecraft equipment (communications, power, thermal, etc.) must operate while packaged within an aeroshell for the duration of the mission up through the aerocapture maneuver. From a risk
3-7

ENCELADUS

Titan Orbit

Enceladus Orbit Enceladus Orbit Titan Orbit

EN012

Figure 3.1.1-8A: Saturn Aerocapture to High Apoapsis Figure 3.1.1-8B: Saturn Aerocapture to Titan Apoapsis

Enceladus Orbit

Enceladus Orbit

Titan Orbit

Titan Orbit

EN056

Figure 3.1.1-9A: Titan Aerocapture to Enceladus Periapsis Figure 3.1.1-9B: Titan Aerocapture to Saturn Periapsis perspective, since Enceladus has no atmosphere and aerocapture is not central to the mission at Enceladus, it is not evident that adding a unique and critical aerocapture maneuver along with the attendant design complexities is warranted. Gravity assists with a moderate increase in mission duration can provide an equivalent benefit. 3.1.1.4 Particle shielding One of the goals of this mission is to perform in-situ sampling of the plume arising from the south polar region of Enceladus. The particles in this plume represent a risk to the spacecraft and instruments, and these components will need to
3-8

ENCELADUS

Saturn Orbiter will see 3.8 km/s plume component in the ram direction and up to 500 m/s in the nadir direction Enceladus South Pole Plume Enceladus south pole plume geometry is a 15 deg half angle cone

Enceladus Orbiter will see up to ~ 270 m/s plume component in ram direction & up to 500 m/s from nadir direction Shielding Orbiter

V plume = 300 - 500 m/s in all directions up to 15 degree half cone angle off the vertical axis

15

V spacecraft = ~ 3.8 km/s (Saturn-OL) V spacecraft = 143 m/s (Enceladus-O & OL)
EN014

Figure 3.1.1-10: Enceladus Plume Geometry and Impact Velocity be protected. A representation of the plume is shown in Figure 3.1.1-10. The current characterization of the plume is based on a few Cassini flybys; subsequent ob servations should provide better estimates of the plume parameters (see Section 2.5). The plume is assumed to be made up of primarily water ice particles. Extrapolation based on Cassini results indicates particles may be as large as 2 mm in diameter. The velocity of some of the particles ex ceeds the Enceladus escape velocity of 241 m/s. The Saturn orbiter velocity of 3.8 km/s through the plume results in a plume transit time of just under 30 seconds at an altitude of 200 km. The Saturn orbiter makes 50 flybys of Enceladus, but only 12 are assumed to go through the plume. For the Enceladus orbiting concepts, the spacecraft orbits Enceladus and passes through the plume at a much slower speed of 143 m/s giving a plume transit time of about six minutes at an altitude of 100 km. The Enceladus orbiters only go through the plume during the two 24-hour polar orbit campaigns. For the shielding analysis, a total of 10 plume passages was assumed (subsequent mis sion design work discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 resulted in 12 plume passages). The particle shielding analysis was performed by the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) lead for hypervelocity impact shielding, ref. (b). Plume characteristics were used to estimate the particle hazard and to recommend protection methods. For the Saturn orbiter, a Whipple shield (com posed of two layers of material separated by a gap) was recommended. Per ref. (b), Whipple shields can be effective for particles with relative veloci ties above 2 km/s. The particle hits the first lay er at high velocity and shatters, and the second layer protects the spacecraft from the particles debris. For the Saturn orbiter, the recommend ed Whipple shield protects against particles up to 0.65 mm in diameter. The shields used have 0.15 mm Kevlar-epoxy facesheets with a 6.4 mm aluminum honeycomb core for a 97% probability of survival (which is defined as no penetration of the shield). The mass per unit area is ~1.3 kg/m2, including the support structure. The relative velocity for the particles encoun tered by the Enceladus orbiter concepts is too low to shatter the particles, so a Whipple shield is not appropriate. Instead a single layer shield of 0.74 mm Kevlar-epoxy is used to protect from particles up to 2.0 mm in diameter. Kevlar-epoxy shielding was selected for a 97% probability of survival. The mass per unit area is ~1.3 kg/m2, including the support structure. Although particle impact velocities are much less for the Enceladus orbiter than for the Saturn orbiter, the particle fluence per plume passage is much larger since the Enceladus orbiter velocity is smaller than the particle velocity. For a power-law particle size distribution (a relationship quantify ing that there are significantly more small par ticles than large particles), this results in the larg est particle likely to impact the Enceladus orbiter being larger than that for the Saturn orbiter. This analysis did not account for altitude differences between the two concepts.
3-9

ENCELADUS

In each of the three concept designs, shielding was included to protect the spacecraft and instrument components, and the mass of the shielding was included in the thermal mass estimates. The shielding for the Saturn orbiter is on components that face in the velocity direction; for the Enceladus orbiter, the shielding is also on the side (nadir) of the orbiter that faces the plume.

3-10

ENCELADUS

3.2 Architecture trade space The trade space for this architecture study is no tionally depicted in Figure 3.2-1. It includes candidate architectures such as: 1. Enceladus orbiter with soft lander with chemical propulsion (Enceladus-OL) 2. Enceladus orbiter with chemical propulsion (Enceladus-O) 3. Saturn orbiter with soft lander with SEP (Saturn-OL) 4. Enceladus orbiter that lands with chemical propulsion 5. Enceladus orbiter using SEP 6. Enceladus orbiter with hard impactor(s) 7. Saturn orbiter with soft lander using chemi cal propulsion and gravity assists 8. Saturn orbiter with soft lander using SEP and more Saturnian moon flybys 9. Saturn orbiter with hard impactor(s) 10. Sample return with or without orbiter 11. Dual launch vehicle loosely coupled orbiter/ lander 12. Dual launch vehicle Low Earth Orbit (LEO) assembly The first three concepts above were selected for initial concept development for their high science value (see Table 2.4.6-1) and for their ability to provide the most insight into the remaining ar chitectures identified. A summary of these archi tectures is provided in Appendix E (Table E-1). Results suggest these architectures merit addi tional investigation. Some of the remaining archi tectures (e.g., single flybys) in the solution space were considered to be of lower scientific value and were not considered further.

Soft Lander Hard Lander None Enceladus Orbiter Saturn Orbiter Saturn-OL Enceladus-O

Enceladus-OL

Single Flyby

Sample Return 1 Launch Chemical Single Stage

1 Launch SEP Multistage

1 Launch Chemical Multistage

2 Launch Multistage
EN058

Figure 3.2-1: Enceladus Flagship Study Architecture Trade Space

3-11

ENCELADUS

3.3 enceladus orbiter with soft Lander (enceladus-oL) 3.3.1 enceladus-oL Architecture overview The Enceladus-OL mission includes an Enceladus orbiter and soft lander and its purpose is to provide for more in-depth mapping of the Enceladus surface and for more encounters with the south polar plume than are possible with the Saturn orbiter concept evaluated in the SaturnOL mission design discussed in Section 3.5. Relative to the Saturn-OL orbiters orbit, an orbit about Enceladus requires a reduction in orbital velocity of 4.0 km/s (~3.8 km/s plus as sociated targeting maneuvers). This velocity re duction is associated with the difference in the periapsis velocity of the spacecraft in its elliptical orbit around Saturn and the velocity of Enceladus in its circular orbit around Saturn. The orbit of the spacecraft around Saturn in the Saturn-OL mission design is highly elliptical with apoapsis radius (~1.33 x 106 km) just beyond Titan ra dius and periapsis radius (~238 x 103 km) about 200 km inside Enceladuss radius. As discussed in Section 3.1.1.2.2, the velocity at periapsis in this orbit is approximately 16.4 km/s, which is 3.8 km/s faster than the 12.6 km/s velocity of Enceladus in its circular orbit around Saturn. Once the spacecraft velocity is matched with that of Enceladus (i.e., not moving with respect to Enceladus), a small additional DV of about 0.2 km/s is needed to match the required velocity of the spacecraft at the desired orbit altitude and achieve the desired inclination. The Enceladus-OL concept includes a three stage flight segment, a ground segment for com munications and mission and science operations and data archival, and a launch segment. The flight segment is described in Section 3.3.3. Chemical propulsion is used for the entire flight segment with dual mode bi-propellant N2O4 / hydrazine in the booster and orbiter, and monopropellant hydrazine in the lander. The ground segment con sists of the NASA Deep Space Network (DSN) 70-m equivalent X/Ka band communications ground station (as allowed in the Study Groundrules), a flight dynamics and navigation facility, a mission operations center, a science operations center, and a science products storage facility as shown in Figure 3.3.3-1.

ban lm Ka- -band t

X

: nce to 10 scie: 3 bps d

ps 0 kb -50 0 kbps 20
RT health/safety processing Commanding Mission scheduling Trending/Analysis Mission planning Network & contact schedule S/C monitor/control Mission Ops testing Sequence generation Sequence Validation Level Zero Processing

s kbp to 2 s 0 bp D: 1 CM

Mission Ops Center

Level Zero Eng/HK Data Products

Observation planning Instrument Performance Level 1 and higher level processing Archiving and Distribution Coordination Science Products NAIF

Science/Instrument Ops

Telemetry DSN Commands

Flight Dynamics/ Navigation

PDS
EN073

Figure 3.3.3-1: Ground Segment Functional Architecture

3-12

ENCELADUS

The launch segment consists of a single Delta IV Heavy (4050H-19) vehicle (see Figure 3.3.3-2), and associated launch and range facilities sup porting operations at space launch complex 37 (SLC-37) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Interfaces with the launch segment are defined in ref. (c), and launch vehicle performance with launch date specific declinations was provided by ref. (d). The Delta 4050H-19 is used for this mis sion concept since it is the only launch vehicle of those identified by the Study Groundrules that has sufficient lift capability for Enceladus-OL. package allows for seismometry and detailed insitu surface chemistry analyses. The science driv ers listed below are met by the strawman payload. A lander seismometer would need a method of surface coupling (in this case, by placement on a lander foot), and anchoring might be required to prevent the surface sampler from pushing the lander off of the surface, given Enceladus weak gravity. Tables 3.3.2-1 and 3.3.2-2 show the Enceladus-OL orbiter and lander strawman pay load suites.
Orbiter Science Drivers:

Global mapping visible, near-IR and thermal IR Understand tectonics, cryovolcanism, sur face processes Determine Love numbers with laser altimetry and Doppler tracking, and determine interior conductivity with magnetic sounding Constrain interior structure, and presence or absence of a global ocean In-situ analysis of plume gas and dust compo nents Understand cryovolcanic processes, organic chemistry Enceladus orbit enables: Precise measurements of gravity field and tidal deformation

EN015

Robust magnetic sounding for a subsurface ocean Complete and consistent global morpholog ical, compositional, and thermal mapping Low-speed plume sampling opportunities for more detailed analysis of more pristine plume samples Good communication relay for more de tailed and robust surface observations

Figure 3.3.3-2: Delta IV Heavy Launch Vehicle at SLC-37 3.3.2 enceladus-oL science investigation All of the science goals shown in Table 2.1.1-1 can be fully addressed by combining an Enceladus orbiter with a robust surface package, with the ex ception of Saturn System Interactions (a third pri ority goal), as shown in Table 2.4.6-1. The close altitude and slow velocity of the orbiter relative to the surface allow for intact capture and analysis of plume particles and gases, complete global map ping, detailed gravity and magnetic field mea surements, and tidal flexing measurements that can be indicative of interior structure. The landed

Lander Science Drivers:

Detailed in-situ analysis of surface chemistry (esp. organic) Composition, cryovolcanism, habitabil ity, presence of key amino acids and biotic compounds?

3-13

table 3.3.2-1: Enceladus-OL Strawman Orbiter Payload

notes on Downlink Nadir Preferred Location and Aperture Pointing Direction reqd Pointing Accuracy (arc sec) % new Development reqd Precursor instrument

instrument

Mass (kg) 14 6 50% 50x50x30 (dayside only) 100% 42x45x36 (optics; 21x29x12 electronics) 10x10x10 0 0.05 35 N/A Nadir, in direction of plume material N/A N/A N/A 10x10x15 plus 10m boom 0.5 2338

Power (W)

11

Duty cycle (in enceladus orbit) 80%

Dimensions Data LxWxh rate (or L x dia.) (kbps) (cm) 55x29x37 5

Thermal Mapper Visible/Near IR Mapper 10 10:1 Nadir, radiator with sky compression view (to be done by C&DH) Nadir-pointing (off-nadir 100 by 25 to fill in poles) 0% new 0% new ~50% new development

10

~50% (longer THEMIS wavelength capability) ~30% (longer New Horizons wavelength capability) Ralph LRO LOLA

Laser Altimeter

10

Radio Science 1

1.5

Magnetometer

100% during tracking 100%

Messenger heritage

ENCELADUS

3-14
5 20% 10x20x15 0.87

GCMS

10

20 W 100% average operation mode desired

Dust Micro Analyzer

10

Nadir, in direction of plume material. Simple funnel to channel particles onto plate

N/A

~30-50% (pyrolysis NGIMS, MSL heater unit, sample SAM collector interface, miniature mass spec, wet chemistry?) ~60% MEMSA

table 3.3.2-2: Enceladus-OL Strawman Lander Payload

Duty cycle Dimensions LxWxh (or L x dia.) (cm) 144 N/A 2.5x2x7.5 15x19x11 120 N/A N/A Alternates w/ other chemistry experiments 2.9x2.5x.89 150 includes 2:1 compression, handled by C&DH includes 2:1 compression, handled by C&DH 28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.24 coupled to surface N/A N/A 0% 0% TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Europa Lander Part of ExoMars Urey includes 5:1 compression, handled by C&DH 0% Data Volume (kb/day) notes on Downlink % new Development reqd Precursor instrument MER PANCAM

instrument

Mass (kg) 5

Power (W)

Lander Camera (two)

0.6

Preferred Location and Aperture Pointing Direction 1 meter above surface, panoramic

reqd Pointing Accuracy (arc sec) N/A

Radio Science

Panorama followed by staggered plume monitoring 100% during comm. passes

Seismometer 25 5 1 5 1

part of comm system 2.3

part of comm system 1 100%

Surface Chemistry Package LDMS

Netlander SEIS Part of ExoMars Urey ExoMars MOMA

Alternates w/ other chemistry experiments Alternates w/ other chemistry experiments

ENCELADUS

3-15

Sampling Arm

Piezoelectric Corer

1.3

Surface Ice Oxidant Detector

0.3

ENCELADUS

High-frequency and low-frequency seismom etry Ice shell thickness, structure, cryovol canism Imaging Surface processes Radio Science Tidal flexing

by the 19 September 2018 launch date. Launch dates earlier than 19 September 2018 were evalu ated but required inner planet flyby altitudes were lower than considered safe (in some cases, the tra jectories intercepted the planet). The target plane of the final trajectory (in this case, the interplanetary trajectory) sets the in clination needed at the time of launch, which in turn sets the declination of the launch as ymptote (DLA), a measure of the difference between the required launch direction and the launch location. Per ref. (d), the reduction in performance for using a DLA other than 28.5 (the minimum for a Cape Canaveral launch) is 6.1% for DLA = -39.6, 4.6% for DLA = -34.0, and 4.0% for DLA = -31.1. These reductions are reflected in the Delta 4050H lift masses shown in Table 3.3.3-1. While shortening the launch window would have increased available launch mass, a 20-day window was believed to be the shortest practical window for a mission with a launch opportunity every 18 months considering constraints and uncertainties in weather, range operations, and launch vehicle readiness once the launch window opens. The trajectory begins with Earth departure on 29 September 2018 with a C3 of 14.87 km2/s2, a DLA of -33.96, and an orbit geometry of 0.648 x 1.016 AU. A VVEES sequence of gravity as sists increases orbit periapsis and apoapsis to arrive at Saturn as shown in Figure 3.1.1-2. Design parameters for the trajectory are shown in Table 3.3.3-2. The closest flyby of Earth is at an altitude of 1558 km (for reference, the Cassini mission used 1171 km Earth flyby altitude). The altitude for Earth flyby is above 1000 km throughout the launch window. A similar launch opportunity exists every 18 months (i.e., the synodic period of Venus), when Venus is in the correct position relative to Earth. Saturns or bital position will change only a small amount every 18 months, as its orbit period is about 29.5 years.
Delta 4050h Lift Mass (0% Margin) (kg) 6915 6805 6300

3.3.3 enceladus-oL Mission Design The following sections focus principally on the flight segment. Interfaces with the ground and launch segments will be summarized only, as the configuration of these segments was given in the Study Groundrules. 3.3.3.1 enceladus-oL Flight Dynamics 3.3.3.1.1 enceladus-oL Launch Window The trajectory, time of flight, and launch capa bility are defined using the 20-day launch win dow shown in Table 3.3.3-1. This table shows the earliest launch date (19 September 2018) in the window results in the lowest required C3 and the longest time of flight to Saturn. Conversely, the latest launch date (9 October 2018) in the window results in the highest required C3 and the shortest time of flight to Saturn. The trajectory initially modeled for Enceladus-OL corresponds to the center of the window (29 September 2018). Since the DV required from the spacecraft var ies across the launch window only on the order of tens of meters per second, the team continued to use the 29 September 2018 trajectory as the reference condition. However, two additional constraints were imposed to allow the flight seg ment to accommodate any launch date in the window. The first was the launch vehicle capabil ity was limited to 6300 kg by the C3 associated with the 9 October 2018 launch date. The second was the maximum time of flight was determined

table 3.3.3-1: Launch Energy and Trip Time for 20-Day Launch Window
Launch Date 19 Sep 2018 29 Sep 2018 9 Oct 2018 c 3 (km2 /s2) 13.25 14.87 19.05 DLA (deg) - 39.6 - 34.0 - 31.1 Vhp earth (km/s) 12.47 12.92 13.56 Vhp saturn (km/s) 5.92 5.79 5.92 3-16
saturn Arrive Date 26 Dec 2030 25 May 2030 7 Jul 2029 trip time (yrs) ~ 12.25 ~ 11.75 ~ 10.75

ENCELADUS

table 3.3.3-2: Enceladus-OL Design Parameters for Trajectory to Saturn

event Flyby Venus Flyby Venus Flyby Earth Flyby Earth Arrive Saturn Date Feb 27, 2019 Apr 22, 2020 Jun 15, 2020 Jun 15, 2024 May 4, 2030
Post Apoapsis Titan/Rhea Orbit

Vhp (km/s) 7.19 7.17 12.88 12.99 5.79

Flyby Altitude (km) 4520 1545 1558 5450

Post Fly-by orbit Geometry (Au) 0.706 x 1.574 AU 0.717 x 1.858 AU 0.893 x 4.149 AU 0.962 x 9.118 AU 0.962 x 9.118 AU

2:1 Orbit 1:1 Orbit 2:3 Orbit

Dione/Enceladus Orbit

Rhea Orbit

Titan Orbit

Dione Orbit Rhea/Dione Orbit

Titan/Rhea Orbit

EN003

Figure 3.3.3-3A: Multiple Titan Resonant Orbits Figure 3.3.3-3B: Titan/Rhea/Dione/Enceladus Resonant Orbits 3.3.3.1.2 enceladus-oL capture at saturn and rhea/Dione Walkdown The handoff between the interplanetary tra jectory and the planetary capture sequence into a Titan/Rhea resonant orbit is executed us ing an approach similar to that discussed in Section 3.1.1.2.2 where the magnitude and di rection of the arrival Vhp and the allowable clos est approach radius sets the placement and tar geting of the inbound hyperbolic asymptote. A higher Vhp may result from a trajectory with a different trip time, but will require a larger brak ing DV to settle into Saturn orbit. Since the only moon of any appreciable size is Titan, the desti nation of the capture sequence is as discussed in Section 3.1.1.2.2. For Enceladus-OL, the clos est approach to Saturn is 82,000 km radius to provide maximum benefit of the Saturn gravity assist, and hence minimize the DV required from the orbiter. There are two key enablers for the EnceladusOL mission. The first is staging, discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.2, and the second is the use of Rhea and Dione flybys, discussed in Section 3.1.1.2.2 and depicted in Figures 3.3.3-3A and 3.3.3-3B, to scrub orbital energy before conduct ing the Enceladus orbit insertion (EOI) burn. A total of 30 Rhea flybys is used to reduce DV by 1650 m/s. This is followed by a total of 13 Dione flybys to reduce DV by another 480 m/s. The flyby frequency averages about once per month, start ing off less frequent and becoming more frequent as the orbital period decreases. The combined DV reduction of 2130 m/s for these flybys greatly re duces requirements for propulsion and enables the mission to fit on a Delta 4050H launch vehicle.

3-17

ENCELADUS

The cost of adding these 43 flybys is an addi tional 3.5 years in mission lifetime as discussed in Section 3.1.1.2.2. Prior to conducting the Rhea flybys, four flybys of Titan are conducted over a period of about nine months following the SOI burn. These flybys reduce the orbit periapsis to the radius of the Rhea orbit and set apoapsis near the radius of the Titan orbit. 3.3.3.1.3 enceladus-oL orbit Design The primary mapping orbit around Enceladus is circular, with a 45 inclination and a 200 km al titude (period 6.26 hrs, orbiter velocity 126 m/s). Analysis shows this orbit appears stable for over 2.7 years to the level of fidelity available with the gravitational models used (the gravity model is based on a uniform density triaxial ellipsoid mod el of Enceladus with Saturn as point source dis turbance). The gravitational model of Enceladus will not be well defined until Enceladus is orbit ed, and this improved definition may result in a less stable orbit. This was one of the principal rea sons for carrying a 500 m/s DV reserve (the other being the uncertainty in the assumptions, such as finite burn losses, used for the Saturn capture sequence). The reference concept of operations (ConOps) uses 12 months of operation at 45, followed by a plane change and altitude reduction to polar orbit at 100 km (orbiter period 4.30 hrs, orbit er velocity 143 m/s) for 24 hours, followed by a plane change back to 45 at 200 km. The cycle is repeated one year later. To provide margin on orbit stability, mapping operations are limited to 24 hours, enough time for six south pole passes and five north pole passes. Transit time through the plume is about six minutes, assuming the plume is a 15 half angle cone (Spahn et al. 2006 ) at 100 km altitude. The polar orbit is oriented such that right ascension maintains an equivalent mean local time of the ascending node at 3:00 pm. This orbit was selected as a compromise between a noon/midnight orbit, which yields good signal to noise for composition and thermal inertia mea surements, and a low Sun angle dawn/dusk or bit that induces shadows needed for topography measurements. The lander deploys from the 45 orbit, so as not to divert the limited time available in polar orbit to functions associated with moni toring lander descent, landing, and checkout. The visible mapping instrument was assumed sized to allow a 50-km wide swath of surface to be observed at an altitude of 200 km. This set the angular field of view for the nadir pointing in strument at 14.03. To cover as much of the scien tific region of interest on the southern surface of Enceladus as possible, the spacecraft attitude (in strument boresight) is offset. Science constraints limit the incidence angle of surface observations to no greater than 50. This results in a 200 km, 45 orbit with a maximum attitude offset of about 18.35 (see Figure 3.3.3-4). In this orbit, all of the surface ranging in latitudes from about 35 north to about 70 south can be imaged. While this gives significant coverage, it leaves a portion of the southern hemisphere unmapped as shown in Figure 3.3.3-5 (since the orbiter has the ability to slew the boresight, the option exists to image up to about 70 north latitude from the 45 orbit, though this scenario has not been evaluated). This level of coverage could be accomplished in as few as 15 days, if the spacecraft were collecting image data 100% of the time. However, the data collec tion rate is constrained to a 1.85% duty cycle by the communication link to Earth, so the required mapping time increases to 2.4 years. Two campaigns designed to cover the south pole fill in the gaps in the mapping. Combining the results of the two polar campaigns with the long term data from the 45 orbit almost completely maps the southern hemisphere of Enceladus (see Figure 3.3.3-6). Polar orbit stability introduces significant mis sion constraints. If a major scientific goal were to map the entire surface of Enceladus, it would be desirable to enter into a near polar orbit of the moon. Being inertially fixed, the ground track of a 100-km circular polar orbit about the tid ally locked moon could completely cover of the surface in about a month when the gravitational field of Enceladus is based on a point source mod el. But when the simple triaxial uniform density model is used, the 100-km polar orbit is stable for just under three days before impact occurs. In creasing the altitude to 200 km causes the orbit to become more eccentric until eventually periapsis is reduced to the point where the orbit intersects the surface. Starting in an eccentric polar orbit (e.g., 100 km x 200 km) is even more unstable, as though the spacecraft were further along in the circular orbits tendency to become more eccen tric. The twice daily orbit maneuvers required to maintain any polar orbit call for intense ground operations (including a significant amount of ex pensive orbit determination activity) and a DV

3-18

ENCELADUS

45 69.52

Instrument FOV

50 km

0 20

km

14.03 50 18.35 Spacecraft Offset Observing Constraint

Orbiter

EN017

Figure 3.3.3-4: Enceladus-OL Relationship between Orbital Altitude, Instrument FOV and Spacecraft Offset Angle
Number of Accesses - Static Contours 0
75 60 45 30 15 0 -15 -30 -45 -60 -75 -165 -150 -135 -120 -105 -90 -75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165

1 2

3 4

5 6 7

9 10

Observing Constraint

EN018

Figure 3.3.3-5: Enceladus-OL Mapping Coverage for Spacecraft with Offset Biased Toward the South
3-19

ENCELADUS

Number of Accesses - Static Contours 0

75 60 45 30 15 0 -15 -30 -45 -60 -75 -165 -150 -135 -120 -105 -90 -75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165

1 2

3 4

5 6 7

9 10

EN019

Figure 3.3.3-6: Enceladus-OL Combined Mapping Coverage for 2.4-Year 45 Orbit (with Offset Biased Toward the South) and Two 24-Hour Polar Orbit Campaigns of up to 10 m/s per day. Even if the navigation and orbital operations could be made autono mous and orbit corrections were possible after an anomaly event, the unstable nature of the polar orbit would call for more fuel mass than appeared feasible for the mapping mission. A range of orbital inclinations was examined. At inclinations above about 50, instabilities caused orbit eccentricity to increase, in some cases caus ing the spacecraft to impact the surface within a few days. However, a 45 orbit (Figure 3.3.3-7) allowed the spacecraft to remain in orbit for an extended period (analysis showed no impact on the surface in a 1000-day scenario, though the altitude of the orbit showed some periodic varia tion). The stability noted for the 45 orbit is likely an artifact of the symmetries inherent in the uni form density, elliptical spheroid assumption used to build the gravity potential model. The actual stability is likely to deviate from this, but without more knowledge of the Enceladus shape and mass distribution, it is not possible to render a high fi delity model. Since the current model is believed to be a reasonable first order approximation, ma neuvers required to maintain this orbit could be expected to be relatively small and to be accom modated by the DV reserve discussed above. 3.3.3.1.4 enceladus-oL Landing Approach An analysis was conducted to determine what it would take to land on Enceladus from

Entry Path Mapping Orbits

EN016

Figure 3.3.3-7: Enceladus-OL Enters into a 45 Inclination Orbit from Saturn Orbit an Enceladus orbit. In that analysis, the lander was deployed from the 45, 200-km mapping orbit and executed a periapsis lowering maneu ver and an inclination change with a single burn (see Figure 3.3.3-8). A DV of about 90 m/s is needed to execute a combined plane change and retroburn to get to the south pole, and another 180 m/s is needed to null the resulting impact velocity at the south pole. Once at the pole, an other 90 m/s is allocated for landing site hazard avoidance and landing site selection. These DV values exclude ACS tax and reserve. The lander is in communication with the orbiter from deploy ment through landing.

3-20

ENCELADUS

3.3.3.1.6 enceladus-oL Mission DV Budget The total DV for the Enceladus-OL trajectory, including maneuvers required to enter orbit about Enceladus and conduct 2.4 years of mapping op erations, is 4497 m/s as shown in Table 3.3.3-4. This DV is used to size the booster and orbiter propulsion systems and includes the DV required to accomplish two round-trip plane changes from the 45 mapping orbit to the polar mapping orbit. It also includes a reserve of 10% plus the addition al reserve of 500 m/s noted in Section 3.3.3.1.3. The DV required for lander operations is 415 m/s. In the Enceladus-OL study, the 5% tax to account for propellant used in non-DV attitude control maneuvers for the booster and orbiter is account ed for as a propellant tax (not shown here), rather than as a DV tax. 3.3.3.2 enceladus-oL Flight segment Design The flight segment configuration, mass, and subsystem design approach is described in the following sections.

V = 88.93 m/s Lander 45_orbiter Impact = 180.01 m/s Landing Site

EN020

Figure 3.3.3-8: DV Required to Alter 45 Orbit to Impact at South Pole 3.3.3.1.5 enceladus-oL timeline of Key events Figures 3.3.3-9, 3.3.3-10, and Table 3.3.3-3 give high level descriptions of the trajectory phas es and the corresponding timeline of key events in the 18.3-year mission.
9/2018 5 mos. 2/2019 4/2020 6/2024 5 yrs 11 mos. 2 4 yrs 14 mos. mo Venus Earth Flyby 1 Flyby 1

5/2030 9 mos.

2/2031 3.5 yrs

8/2034 2.4 yrs Enceladus Ops

1/2037

Venus Earth Flyby 2 Flyby 2

Titan Flybys Saturn Orbit Insertion Cruise

Enceladus Orbit Insertion

Polar Campaigns

Mapping Rhea/Dione Flybys Lander Ops

Checkout Venus Gravity Assist

Earth Gravity Assist

EN021

Figure 3.3.3-9: Enceladus-OL Mission Key Events

3-21

ENCELADUS

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Launch and Checkout Venus Flybys Earth Flybys Solar Conjunctions Mid-course Maneuver

Mission Lifetime = 18.3 years

Saturn Orbit Insertion Titan Flybys Rhea/Dione Flybys Enceladus Orbit Insertion Mapping Polar Campaign Lander Campaign

EN023

Figure 3.3.3-10: Enceladus-OL Mission Timeline table 3.3.3-3: Key Events in 18.3-Year EnceladusOL Mission Timeline
Date September 29 February 27 April 22 June 15 June 15 June 10 May 4 August 8 August October August January Year 2018 2019 2020 2020 2024 2025 2030 2034 2035 2035 2036 2037 event Launch/Checkout Venus Flyby 1 Venus Flyby 2 Earth Flyby 1 Earth Flyby 2 Mid course trajectory maneuver Saturn Orbit Insertion Enceladus Orbit Insertion Polar Campaign (24 hours) Landing Polar Campaign (24 hours) End of Mission

flight segment during mission operations. Steps 1, 2, and 3 as entities are used principally to account for mass that separates from the vehicle during staging events. 3.3.3.2.2 enceladus-oL Mass Properties Table 3.3.3-5 gives a top level summary of flight segment mass by stage, including mass con tingency (B = Booster, O= Orbiter, L = Lander). The Stage 1 gross mass is 6320 kg, including the instrument suite (shown in Tables 3.3.2-1 and 3.3.2-2) and propellant. This leaves slightly nega tive (-0.3%) lift margin on the Delta 4050H lift capability of 6300 kg. Approximate sensitivities of Stage 1 gross mass to changes in the masses of each step be determined using the rocket equation, mp = mf [e (DV / Isp g ) -1], where mp is propellant mass, mf is the final mass, Isp is the effective specific impulse, g is the Earth gravitational acceleration, and is an efficiency term ( = 1.00 was used in this analysis). Noting that mi = mf + mp, where mi is the initial stage mass, the ratio of initial to final stage mass follows. mi/mf = 1 + mp/mf = e (DV / Isp g ) Applying this equation to the Stage 1, 2, and 3 masses in Table 3.3.3-5, gives mi/mf = 1.63, 2.83, and 1.21, respectively. Values for mi/mf depend only on DV and effective Isp, with g and being constant. Compounding the effect of these changes, the resulting values for the change in Stage 1 initial mass with changes in Step 1, 2, and 3 masses are shown below.

3.3.3.2.1 enceladus-oL configuration Figures 3.3.3-11 through 3.3.3-16 show the general arrangement of the flight segment. The flight segment consists of the booster (also re ferred to as Step 1, using MIL-STD-176A no menclature for multi-stage systems), the orbiter (referred to as Step 2), and the lander (referred to as Step 3). The lander is also referred to as Stage 3, whereas the orbiter + lander configuration is re ferred to as Stage 2, and the booster + orbiter + lander is referred to as Stage 1. In most instances, the stage is the more relevant entity, since a stage represents the incremental configuration of the

3-22

ENCELADUS

table 3.3.3-4: Enceladus-OL Mission DV Budget

Booster & orbiter DV Budget Maneuver Launch TCM 1: Target Venus 1 TCM 2: Target Venus 2 TCM 3: Target Earth 1 TCM 4: Target Earth 2 Mid Course Correction Saturn Orbit Injection (SOI) Post SOI TCMs Apoapsis Burn Titan Resonant TCMs (as needed) Target Titan 2:1 Orbit Target Titan 1:1 Orbit Target Titan 2:3 Orbit Target Titan 16:31 Orbit Target Enceladus sub total transit to saturn Acs tax (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

DV (m/s)
0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 650.0 10.0 350.0

DV (m/s) with Acs tax 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

10.0 650.0 10.0 350.0

DV Margin
(%) 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

DV (m/s)
0.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 715.0 11.0 385.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 1232.0 4158.0 242.0 440.0 55.0 4895.0 6127.0 2130.0 2765.0 3997.0 500.0 4497.0

effective

10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 1120.0 1120.0 enceladus orbit insertion, ops & Maint 3780.0 220.0 400.0 50.0 4450.0 5570.0 2130.0 2320.0 3440.0 500.0 3940.0 Lander DV Budget 0.0 88.9 180.0 90.0 358.9 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 93.3 189.0 94.5 376.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3780.0 220.0 400.0 50.0 4450.0 5570.0 2130.0 2320.0 3440.0

Match Enceladus Orbit Enceladus Plane Changes (4) Orbit Maintenance (2.4 years) sub total enceladus (no rhea/Dione Flybys) total (no rhea/Dione Flybys)

10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

Add 3.5 years & 43 rhea/Dione Flybys

DV Reduction*
sub total enceladus (with rhea/Dione Flybys) total (with rhea/Dione Flybys)

0.0

0.0

DV reserve (held for Modeling uncertainty)

total Booster & orbiter DV with reserve Separation From Orbiter Plane Change to South Region & Retroburn Null Impact Velocity Hazard Avoidance total Lander DV with reserve

0.0

0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

0.0 102.7 207.9 104.0 414.5

*Relative to an approach which enters a Titan - Enceladus elliptical orbit prior to circularizing at Enceladus

3-23

ENCELADUS

Stage #3 Step #3 Stage #2 Lander DELTA 4050 H-19 Fairing Static Envelope Orbiter 1.5-m Fixed Antenna

Stage #1

Step #2

Step #1

Propulsion Module (Booster)

EN006

Figure 3.3.3-11: View Looking at Enceladus-OL +Z Face and Showing Compatibility with Delta 4050H Fairing Static Envelope

Top View Delta 4050 H Fairing Static Envelope Separation Plane

Y Z

Y X

Step #2 Separation Plane

Side Views

Step #1

EN009

Figure 3.3.3-12: Three View of Enceladus-OL

3-24

ENCELADUS

Step #3 Instrument Deck Carbon Fiber Skin/Carbon Fiber Core Kinematic Mounts - Titanium Main Truss Structure Carbon Fiber Tube / Al Aly Corners ASRG Mounting Ring Carbon Fiber Custom Separation System Sep Nuts & Springs Al Aly/steel Main Truss Structure Carbon Fiber Tube / Al Aly Corners Step #1 Propulsion Structure Carbon Fiber Lower Truss Structure Carbon Fiber Tube / Al Aly Corners
EN011

Lander

Step #2

1.5-m Fixed HGA

Radiator (front & back)

Figure 3.3.3-13: Major Components of Enceladus-OL (View Looking at X Face)

Magnetometer Boom (stowed)

1.5-m Fixed
HGA

Radiator Panel
(Front & Back)
Instruments ASRGs
4 Flt Units

Propulsion
Tanks
Propulsion Thrusters ASRG - Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator
EN013

Figure 3.3.3-14: Enceladus-OL Perspective View and Closeout Configuration

3-25

ENCELADUS

Stage #3 Step #3 OMNI Antenna (2 ea) Deployable Camera Comm. Package (2 ea)

IMU

Surface Chemistry Seismometer Surface Ice Oxidant Detector LDMS Laser Altimeter (2 ea) Drill Housed in Leg Battery
EN024

Avionics Suite

Figure 3.3.3-15: Enceladus-OL Lander Instrument Locations

Stage #3 Step #3

Prop Tank IMU (2 ea)

Comm. Package

Laser Altimeter (2 ea) Battery Box

Drill Sampler (size notional)

EN025

Figure 3.3.3-16: Enceladus-OL Lander Configuration

3-26

ENCELADUS

table 3.3.3-5: Enceladus-OL Mission Level Summary Mass Statement

Launch Vehicle Margin (%) Launch Vehicle capability (kg) Stage 1 (B+O+L) Initial - Stage 1 Propellant* Stage 1 Dry - Step 1 (Booster) Dry Stage 2 (O+L) Initial - Stage 2 Propellant* Stage 2 Dry w/instruments - Step 2 (Orbiter) Dry Stage 3 (Lander) Initial - Stage 3 Propellant* Stage 3 Dry w/instruments * Includes residuals and loading uncertainty
D Stage 1i / D Step 1Dry = (mi/mf)1 = 1.63 D Stage 1i / D Step 2Dry = (mi/mf)2 (mi/mf)1 = 4.62 D Stage 1i / D Step 3Dry = (mi/mf)3 (mi/mf)2 (mi/mf)1 = 5.59

enceladus-oL -0.3 6300 Mass (kg) 6320 2450 3870 489 3381 2186 1196 968 228 42 186

particularly when changes in structural length accompany propellant increases. A further breakout of mass by subsystem for each step is provided in Tables 3.3.3-6 through 3.3.3-8. Propellant was computed on the basis of mass with contingency, i.e., the allocation mass. 3.3.3.2.3 enceladus-oL Booster and orbiter (B & o) Description All booster and orbiter subsystems are designed to be 1-fault tolerant for credible failures, consis tent with NPR 8705.4 guidance for Class A mis sions. A brief summary of orbiter design approach is provided below. 3.3.3.2.3.1 enceladus-oL (B & o) Mechanical subsystem The orbiter mechanical system uses carbon fiber composite for the Step 1 and Step 2 propulsion structure and truss members and for the Step 2 ring housing the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators (ASRGs). Aluminum alloy is used at both sides of the interface between Step 1 and Step 2 and at the separation interface with the launch vehicle. Step 2 top, bottom, experiment deck, and antenna deck panels are carbon fiber with an aluminum honeycomb core. Examples of spacecraft and instruments that have flown using graphite reinforced epoxy composite structural elements include SWIFT, FUSE, WMAP, and GLAS (an instrument which flew on the ICESAT spacecraft). In addition, composite material systems are being used for other missions currently in development, including SDO, GLAST, and JWST. The magnetometer is deployed on a 10-meter boom during the post-launch checkout. 3.3.3.2.3.2 enceladus-oL (B & o) Power subsystem Power for the booster and orbiter is provided by four 143 W beginning of life (BOL) ASRGs and a rechargeable lithium ion battery. The power system, located in the orbiter, provides 28V DC power to subsystems and instruments on the orbiter and heater power to the booster. To conserve lander battery power, the orbiter also provides power to the lander for pre-separation checkout and thermal conditioning of the propulsion sys tem as well as for uploading terrain map scenes taken during orbiter mapping passes. At the end

Scaling using this approach gives only a firstorder approximation and should be used with caution. For example, while it accounts for the additional propellant required for an increase in dry mass, it excludes the corresponding increase in propellant tank size and supporting structure. The increase in propellant tank dry mass is about 6.5% of the increase in propellant mass for both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 propulsion systems. The increase in propulsion system supporting structure mass is about 8% of the increase in propulsion system dry mass (which, to the first approximation, is the same as the increase in propellant tank mass). Combining these factors, propellant tank dry mass plus supporting structure is about 7% of propellant mass. Also, when an existing solid motor is used for one of the stages, scaling only applies within the limits of the size of that motor. The supporting structure factor of 8% is usable for scaling propellant mass changes of about +/150 kg. Beyond that, structure growth (not included in the 8% factor) can become significant,

3-27

ENCELADUS

table 3.3.3-6: Enceladus-OL Step 1 (Propulsion Module) Mass Statement

step 1 (Propulsion Module) Dry Mass Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass Mechanical 196 52 Attitude Control 0 0 Thermal 18 5 Propulsion 157 42 Power 0 0 C&DH 0 0 Communications 0 0 Propulsion Module Harness 6 1 Propulsion Module total Dry Mass 376 100 step 1 (Propulsion Module) Wet Mass Estimate (Kg) % Total Wet Mass Propulsion Module Dry Mass 376 13 Propellant Mass (Incl. Residuals) 2450 87 Propulsion Module Wet Mass 2826 100 % Contingency 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 0 Allocation (Kg) 255 0 23 203 0 0 0 7 489 Allocation (Kg) 489 2450 2939

of the 18.8 year (worst case) mission life, each ASRG provides 124 W. The maximum steady state load of 362 W includes 30% contingency and oc curs during the normal science mapping mode (in both the 45 and polar orbits). Table 3.3.3-9, provided by ref. (e), shows using three ASRG units will meet this load requirement, but unlike the RTG, the ASRG is not considered internally redundant, so a fourth ASRG is carried as an op erating spare. Mass being a critical parameter, it was of interest to know how four ASRG units, one of which is assumed to have failed, compared with three operating RTG units. Table 3.3.3-9 shows flying three RTG units results in higher mass and insufficient power compared with fly ing four ASRG units under these conditions. Additionally, thermal rejection requirements are significantly higher with the RTG units. Occasionally during the mission, the orbiter power system will see loads significantly higher than the 372 W available for transient periods. For example, a load of 746 W occurs during SOI and EOI maneuvers, during which the omni an tennas are concurrently transmitting telemetry. The battery must have sufficient capacity to pro vide the transient load under the worst case single failure condition, which corresponds to the loss of one main engine for an EOI maneuver (all four ASRGs operating). In this case, the two engine EOI burn time of 1.55 hrs nominally doubles to 3.10 hours. Since the EOI maneuver occurs at

16.5 years, the power available from four ASRGs is 505 W. Assuming a battery charge discharge ef ficiency of 0.813, this requires a battery capacity of 32.7 Ahr and results in a battery depth of dis charge (DoD) of about 82% relative to the baselined 40 Ahr internally redundant battery. This DoD is relatively high and indicates the battery size should be re-evaluated in future studies, given the battery is needed for routine communications during Enceladus mapping operations. Other fail ure cases; including pre-SOI engine failure, or preSOI or pre-EOI ASRG failure; resulted in depth of discharge levels no higher than 66%. 3.3.3.2.3.3 enceladus-oL (B & o) thermal control subsystem The Enceladus-OL thermal design (see Figure 3.3.3-17) maintains spacecraft compo nent temperatures within -10C to +40C (oper ating) and -20C to +50C (non-operating). This is done in part through the use of a combination of coatings and multi-layer insulation (MLI). Additionally, variable conductance heat pipes (VCHPs) transport heat from bus components to two aluminium honeycomb bus radiator panels with embedded VCHPs. Orbiter instruments are thermally isolated from the bus and maintain tem peratures within -10C to +40C operating and -20C to +50C non-operating with a combina tion of MLI and heaters. Heaters and thermistors are also used to control temperatures of orbiter

3-28

ENCELADUS

table 3.3.3-7: Enceladus-OL Step 2 (Orbiter) Mass Statement

step 2 (orbiter) science Payload Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass 11 1 10 1 10 1 1 0 4 1 10 1 10 1 0 0 56 8 step 2 (orbiter) spacecraft Bus Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass 236 32 27 4 36 5 154 21 94 13 46 6 55 7 42 6 688 92 step 2 (orbiter) Dry Mass Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass 56 8 688 92 744 100 step 2 (orbiter) Wet Mass Estimate (Kg) % Total Wet Mass 744 25 2186 75 2930 100 % Contingency 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 0 Allocation (Kg) 14 13 13 1 5 13 13 0 73 Allocation (Kg) 306 35 47 200 122 59 72 55 895 Allocation (Kg) 73 895 968 Allocation (Kg) 968 2186 3153

Thermal Mapper VIS/NIR Mapper Laser Altimeter Radio Science Magnetometer GCMS Dust Micro Analyzer Sounding Radar Payload total

Mechanical Attitude Control Thermal Propulsion Power C&DH Communications Spacecraft Harness Bus total

Science Payload Total Bus Total orbiter Dry Mass

Orbiter Dry Mass Propellant Mass (Incl. Residuals) orbiter Wet Mass

and booster components; where the largest share of heater power goes to propulsion. The thermal mapper has a dedicated passive radiator to main tain an operating temperature of 60 K, and the lithium ion battery is maintained at an operating temperature between 0C and +30C. Shields on the +Y side of the ASRGs serve to protect the in struments from ASRG thermal radiation as well as to shield the ASRGs from particle impact from the Enceladus plume. A sunshade made of heat resistant ceramic cloth is located on the booster -Y face, and the booster main engines have a heat shield to minimize heat transfer to the orbiter and to the booster propellant tanks during en gine firing.

3.3.3.2.3.4 enceladus-oL (B & o) Propulsion subsystem A three-stage design is used to maximize mass delivered to Enceladus orbit and to the Enceladus surface relative to that achievable with two stage (i.e., orbiter and lander) design. The booster and orbiter contain dual-mode nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4)/hydrazine propulsion systems. The booster provides the required DV in bipropellant mode for SOI through targeting the Titan/Rhea elliptical orbit, with monopropellant for ACS control (see Table 3.3.3-4). Up until the main engines are needed for SOI, however, it operates in monopropellant blowdown mode for

3-29

ENCELADUS

table 3.3.3-8: Enceladus-OL Step 3 (Lander) Mass Statement

Lander Camera (2 Flt. Units) Radio Science (In Comm.) Seismometer Surface Chemistry Package LDMS Piezoelectric Corer Surface Ice Oxidant Detector Sample Arm Mechanism Payload total step 3 (Lander) science Payload Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.6 3.0 2.1 4.0 2.8 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.2 3.0 2.1 14.5 10.2 step 3 (Lander) spacecraft Bus Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass 37.8 26.5 9.8 6.9 7.8 5.4 13.9 9.7 16.2 11.4 33.7 23.6 9.1 6.4 128.3 89.8 step 3 (Lander) Dry Mass Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass 14.5 10.2 128.3 89.8 142.8 100.0 step 3 (Lander) Wet Mass Estimate (Kg) % Total Wet Mass 142.8 77 42.4 23 185.1 100 % Contingency 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 0 Allocation (Kg) 0.8 0.0 3.0 3.9 5.2 1.7 0.4 3.9 18.9 Allocation (Kg) 49.1 12.7 10.1 18.1 21.1 43.8 11.8 166.7 Allocation (Kg) 18.9 166.7 185.6 Allocation (Kg) 185.6 42.4 227.9

Mechanical Attitude Control Thermal Propulsion Power (Includes S/C Harness) C&DH Communications Bus total

Science Payload Total Bus Total Lander Dry Mass

Lander Dry Mass Propellant Mass Lander Wet Mass

table 3.3.3-9: Characteristics of Radioisotope Power Supply Units

no. 3 4 type RTG ASRG unit Mass (kg) 44 20.2 unit Power BoL (W) 125 143 Power Loss (%/Year) 1.6 0.8 unit Power 18.8 year eoL (W) 96 124 total Power eoL (W) 288 372* total Mass (kg) 132 80.8

* assumes one of four ASRG units has failed

pitch and yaw control as well as for trajectory correction maneuvers. The monopropellant thrusters are used for both ACS control and DV to avoid exposing the stainless steel oxidizer thruster valves to N2O4 and to avoid the potential for iron nitrate contamination during the 11.7-year cruise

to Saturn. Following SOI, all thrusters operate in pressure regulated mode. The orbiter provides the DV in bi-propellant mode (with monopropel lant for ACS control) for EOI and for maneuvers required while in Enceladus orbit. Orbiter maneuvers occur frequently enough to the purge the

3-30

ENCELADUS

Lander is enclosed with MLI with Kevlar sheet S/C Bus Radiators (Embedded VCHPs) Thermal Mapper Radiator Electronics housed inside bus and mounted to side walls or to top deck; VCHPs transport heat to radiator panel with embedded VCHPs ASRGs have plume shield and heat shield

quantities in Tables 3.3.3-6 and 3.3.3-7 include a 5% tax for attitude control maneuvers. 3.3.3.2.3.5 enceladus-oL (B & o) Attitude control subsystem Three axis attitude control is provided by four 4 Nms reaction wheels mounted on the orbiter and by thrusters mounted on both the orbiter and the booster. The wheels are oriented such that any three suffice to meet control requirements and such that momentum unloading (not done when communicating or taking science data) can be done with pure torques. Attitude knowledge is provided by a combination of two star trackers, eight coarse Sun sensors, and two inertial refer ence units. The orbiter attitude control require ment of .028 deg is driven by the laser altimeter instrument. During the inner planet flybys and up to about 1.5 AU, Stage 1 is oriented with the booster engine pointed toward the Sun to minimize the thermal load from absorbed solar flux. In most cases, Stage 1 slews away from this orientation for communication events using the HGA. Beyond about 1.5 AU, it is no longer necessary to orient the booster engine toward the Sun for thermal reasons. During the SOI burn and EOI burns, the Stage 1 and Stage 2 engines, respectively, ori ent along the velocity vector. Orbiter slew times meet communication line of sight requirements between the lander and the orbiter, which is in the 45 inclination, 200 km orbit (even with the altitude variations observed in this orbit, the slant range will be always be greater than 200 km). They also suffice to slew the instrument boresight 30 off nadir (about the longitudinal axis) prior to plume passage in the polar orbit to help protect the optical instruments and to orient the GCMS into the nadir position. The use of larger wheels could reduce the boresight slew time and increase the time available for mapping. Thrusters could also be used to do this, but the weak orbit stability may be incom patible with the use of thrusters. The wheels will be maintained above a threshold speed to prevent lubricant deterioration. 3.3.3.2.3.6 enceladus-oL (B & o) Avionics and Flight software subsystem The avionics system is fully block redundant, and its components are located on the orbiter and

MLI Enclosure

EN026

Figure 3.3.3-17: Enceladus-OL Stage 1 Thermal Configuration anticipated build up of iron nitrate. The orbiter also operates in monopropellant blowdown mode for Stage 2 pitch, roll, and yaw control, as well as for roll control of Stage 1 prior to EOI. Following EOI, all thrusters operate in pressure regulated mode. Titanium is used for booster and orbiter tanks, components, and lines up to the thruster valves. Both the booster and orbiter propulsion systems contain two 445 N bi-propellant main engine thrusters. The booster step has eight monopropellant 22 N thrusters for pitch/yaw control and DV, and the orbiter has 16 monopropellant 22 N thrusters for pitch/yaw control and DV and eight monopropellant 4 N thrusters for roll control. These thrusters, which include redundant thrusters, are existing hardware. Each system contains two hydrazine, two N2O4, and two helium (pressurant) tanks. Customized tank volumes are used to limit the mass of the propellant tanks on both the booster and the orbiter. This may result in the need for re-qualification. The propellant distribution between the booster and orbiter resulted from an optimization study that maximized mass available for the lander. The combination of maneuvers conducted in bi-propellant and monopropellant mode over the total propellant expended results in an effective Isp for the booster and orbiter of 293 s and 303 s, respectively. The propellant

3-31

ENCELADUS

principally in the ring housing the ASRGs. The system uses an architecture based on a PowerPC class single board computer, MIL-STD-1553 for command and telemetry, RS-422 for science data acquisition and Spacewire or cPCI for internal high speed communications, and I2C for inter nal low speed communications. Autonomous, on-board fault detection and correction and safe mode capability is implemented due to the ~80 minute communication delay between the DSN and the orbiter. Flight software margins for the central processor and memory exceed 50%. Three test strings are used, one for each of the C&DH and ACS testbeds and one for the system level / maintenance testbed (the latter being the highest fidelity). Avionics boxes are shielded with 2.54 mm aluminum. With this thickness of shielding, ra diation models predict a total absorbed dose of 10 krad prior to SOI. The SATRAD model used to estimate Total Ionizing Dose (TID) once with in the Saturn system estimated a TID as high as 2 krad/week for trapped particles or 250 krad for the 2.4 year mapping mission. Applying a (cus tomary) factor of two for design margin, the TID becomes 500 krad. The TID for the 3.5 years spent in Rhea and Dione flybys is anticipated to be an order of magnitude lower than for the mapping phase. That gives a mission TID of ~560 krad with 2.54 mm shielding, which is well above an acceptable (< 100 krad) level. An in crease in shield thickness (approximately double, with an attendant increase in mass) will be re quired to decrease the TID to an acceptable level of about 50 krad. It should be noted that: a) the SATRAD model has not been validated for TID estimation, and b) this analysis accounts for no reduction in the radiation environment due to the presence of the neutral gas torus in the vicinity of the Enceladus orbit, since that reduction has not been validated. 3.3.3.2.3.7 enceladus-oL (B & o) communi cations subsystem The communications system consists of a fixed 1.5 m diameter high gain antenna (HGA) system and a nadir and zenith mounted omni antenna system on the orbiter. The capabilities of the sys tems are summarized in Table 3.3.3-10. When the HGA is needed, the orbiter will slew to point the HGA. Ranging can be done using the HGA with X-band uplink and Ka-band downlink or can be done with X-band uplink and downlink on either the HGA or the omni system. Ranging can be performed simultaneously with telemetry transmission. Telemetry coverage is provided by the omni antennas for DV burns for critical events such as SOI, EOI, and Enceladus orbit plane changes, which require a specific thruster orienta tion. Upon completion of the event, the orbiter slews quickly using thrusters to point the HGA toward Earth to dump the full telemetry stream from the event. Communications coverage during the SOI burn will be interrupted when Stage 1 is eclipsed by Saturn (as a point of reference, Cassini was out contact for about 65 minutes during the SOI burn). The balance of critical event burns can be accomplished within communications contact of DSN. Margins of 3 dB or better exist on all links with the exception of the omni antenna up link and downlink link between the orbiter and the DSN. Given the transmit power for the omni is relatively high and the data rate is about as low as practical for this stage of design, the addition of a medium gain antenna may be a better option for improving link margin than increasing power or reducing data rate. table 3.3.3-10: Enceladus-OL Orbiter Communi cation Capability at Enceladus
hGA Ka-Band orbiter Transmit to Earth Receive From Earth Transmit to Lander Receive from Lander Lander Transmit to Orbiter Receive from Orbiter * Link margin is less than 3 dB 500 kbps ~ 2 kbps 40 kbps 8 kbps 2 kbps ~ 2 kbps 500 kbps 3 bps* 10 bps* hGA X-Band oMni

The total data volumes stored for the polar or bit, the 45 mapping orbit, and for the lander are summarized in Table 3.3.3-11. These volumes assume 10:1 compression on the visible/near infared mapper, 5:1 compression on the lander cameras, and include instrument and spacecraft housekeeping along with 30% contingency. Data storage volume differs from downlink data vol ume in that it includes 7-bit Hamming code

3-32

ENCELADUS

error detection whereas the downlink data vol ume excludes Hamming code error detection and includes Reed Solomon coding overhead. Both storage and downlink include CCSDS overhead. Orbiter instruments (aside from dust micro-ana lyzer and magnetometer) collect data for 25% of the 4.3 hour orbit on south pole passes and 25% of the orbit on north pole passes. The magnetom eter collects data continuously, and the dust mi cro-analyzer collects data selectively. table 3.3.3-11: Enceladus-OL Data Stored and Transmitted
total Data stored (Gb) Orbiter 90 deg orbit Orbiter 45 deg orbit Lander 19.17 1.17 0.803 total Data transmitted (Gb) 18.12 1.10 0.651

3.3.3.2.4.1 enceladus-oL Lander Descent, Landing, and surface operations The lander delivers the instruments listed in Table 3.3.2-2 to the surface of Enceladus to op erate for eight days. The lander is off for most of the time between launch and its deployment, about 17 years later. It is turned on periodically to checkout the lander components. While attached to the orbiter, the lander uses power from the or biter. The target landing site is between 70 S and the south pole. It is selected after analysis of images from the first polar orbit campaign. The landing site needs to be smooth, flat, and have evidence of relatively fresh material. The hazard avoidance algorithms will be tailored based on the features that surround the targeted site. The images gath ered in the first polar campaign are converted on the ground into targeting maps that the lander uses during the automated landing. These maps are tested using the ground simulators and then uploaded to the lander via the orbiter. The land ing time is selected so that the lighting conditions are similar to that of the targeting maps. The lander is deployed from the orbiter using a clampband separation system and springs. The landing profile is shown in Figure 3.3.3-18. At the equator, the lander performs a major propul sion burn to change its inclination and lower its periapsis. The lander continues on this trajectory using the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) un til it is 20 km from the surface. At that point, it uses its imager and the onboard maps to deter mine its position. It uses the propulsion system to slow its descent and to translate to a position above the landing target. At a 5-km height, the hazard avoidance software uses the data from the imager and the range finder to identify and avoid hazards, such as ice blocks that are larger than ~25 cm that could cause the lander to overturn. The lander turns off the thrusters at a height of 20 meters and the lander descends gently to the surface. The lander retains a small residual hori zontal velocity when the thrusters are turned off so that the thrusters plumes do not contaminate the landing site. The lander has sufficient propel lant to allow for the identification and avoidance of hazards. The landing trajectory is designed so the lander can communicate with the orbiter from deployment through landing.

As discussed in Section 3.3.3.1.3, the daily data collection in the 45 orbit is limited by the orbiter downlink rate and by a communication window of 9.0 hours per day, per the study Study Groundrules. A period of 7.64 hours is required to downlink 1.10 Gb at 40 kbps, and Enceladus eclipses the orbiter line of sight to Earth for about 1.25 hour. Data taken during each polar cam paign will be stored for transmission once back in the 45 orbit to avoid time lost to slewing. Trans mitting about 18.1 Gb of polar orbit data requires 16 passes of just under eight hours each to the DSN at 40 kbps. Lander data will be transmit ted to the orbiter while in the 45 orbit. About 22 minutes per day is required to transmit lander data to the orbiter. With the lander located exact ly at the south pole (worst case) and a 5 elevation angle, the minimum contact time available is 94 minutes per 24 hour Earth day (the orbiter would be above 10 elevation for at least 24 minutes per day if the lander were located exactly at the south pole). The contact time increases rapidly as the location moves away from pole and/or the eleva tion constraint is relaxed. Over six hours per day is available at a latitude of -70. Mapping opera tions will be suspended for the brief time it takes to collect and downlink the lander data. 3.3.3.2.4 enceladus-oL Lander Description The lander design and operation is described in the following section. All lander subsystems are single fault tolerant for credible failures.

3-33

ENCELADUS

Separation 200 km Plane Change/ Deorbit Burn 20 km 5 km 1 km 20 m Turn on Hazard Avoidance, Define Target and Make Trajectory Adjustments Null Velocities Turn off all Thrusters
EN028

Bal

list

ic
Acquire: Find Out Where You Are

Hazard Avoidance

Slow Descent to Target

Figure 3.3.3-18: Enceladus-OL Landing Profile The instruments start operating immediately upon landing (landing is indicated by the acceler ometer) and are turned off once they have complet ed their observations in order to conserve power. Operations for the sample analysis instruments are complete after 24 hours. Operations for the imag ers are complete after 36 hours. The seismometer (incorporated within the lander footpad) remains operating for eight days. The imagers take a pan oramic picture every two hours over one Enceladus day. The imagers also observe the plumes, with onboard change detection software processing this data to reduce its volume. The sample collec tion device collects in-situ samples and distributes them to the three sample analysis instruments. The landers avionics collects the instrument data and sends it back to the orbiter once per day. The lander communications approach is discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.3.7. The lander transmitter will be turned off between communication events, by stored command, to conserve power and will be turned on by stored command. The orbiter has ad ditional capability to command the transmitter on and off, also by stored command. 3.3.3.2.4.2 enceladus-oL Lander Mechanical subsystem The lander structure uses carbon fiber compos ite and aluminum alloy in the feet and on the lander side of the separation structure. The lander legs use a sleeve within a cylinder arrangement to absorb the shock of landing. A pan and tilt mechanism is provided for the camera instru ments. Figures 3.3.3-15 and 3.3.3-16 show the lander and its components. 3.3.3.2.4.3 enceladus-oL Lander Power sub system Power for the lander is provided by a 5000 Whr lithium ion non-rechargable battery. The lander operating life is eight days. Prior to separation, the lander uses the orbiter power as needed to main tain temperatures within limits and to perform periodic checkouts and engineering functions. 3.3.3.2.4.4 enceladus-oL Lander Avionics and Flight software subsystems The avionics subsystem is 1-fault tolerant and the lander can autonomously switch to the redun dant avionics string if it detects a problem. The avionics includes the lander processor, a commu nications card, data compression for the imagers, propulsion electronics, power supply electron ics, and electronics for the thermal system. The processor is a PowerPC class unit that provides 240 MIPS at a clock speed of 132 MHz. The avionics uses RS-422 connections to the science

3-34

ENCELADUS

instrument for science data and a 1553 bus for command and telemetry communication. Storage for 803 Mbits of science and housekeeping data is provided. The lander flight software processes the imager, laser altimeter, and other ACS sensor data to provide for a safe landing. It uses the onboard maps and the imager data to locate itself, then drives the lander to the target while avoiding hazards. Once on the ground, the flight software processes the plume images to detect changes in order to reduce the volume of the data. Flight software margins for the central processor and memory exceed 50%. 3.3.3.2.4.5 enceladus-oL Lander Propulsion subsystem The lander propulsion system is a monopropellant blowdown design, using a single hydrazine tank, one 22 N main thruster, and redundant strings of eight 4 N attitude control system thrusters. The propulsion system is single fault tolerant to credible failures; the ACS thrusters can be used in the event of a main engine failure. The propulsion system is sized to provide 415 m/s of DV (including ACS tax and reserve) to accomplish the plane change and retroburn and to null the impact velocity. This DV includes an allocation for hazard avoidance as described in Section 3.3.3.1.4. An area that merits future study is the use of a pressure regulated system that maintains a constant level of thrust.
3.3.3.2.4.6 enceladus-oL Lander Attitude control subsystem The lander attitude control system consists of redundant IMUs (gyro and accelerometer), laser rangefinders, and the imaging instruments. The lander uses the IMU for navigation from separation from the orbiter until the lander is about 20 km from the surface. At that point, the navigation transitions to use of the imager and the laser rangefinder to complete the landing. The redundant attitude control thruster strings mounted on the top and bottom decks provide six degree-offreedom control. The IMU is calibrated prior to release from the orbiter. 3.3.3.2.4.7 enceladus-oL Lander thermal control subsystem The thermal system maintains the temperature of the instruments, battery, electronics, and propulsion systems within operating limits. The lander is covered with 18 layers of MLI includ ing a layer of Kevlar. The lander propulsion module is thermally conditioned prior to separation to minimize the amount of lander battery power required for heaters. A combination of electrical heaters (primarily for the propulsion module) and radioisotope heater units (RHUs) are used to maintain temperatures within operating limits. The thermal system uses RHUs to heat the interi or cavity of the lander. Electrical heaters are used for the sampling mechanism. Propulsion system heaters are turned off after landing. 3.3.3.2.4.8 enceladus-oL Lander communi cations subsystem The lander communicates with the orbiter in X-band. The landers frequencies are reversed from the orbiter, with the landers transmitter us ing the same frequency as the orbiters receiver and vice versa. The lander uses a one Watt transmitter and two cross dipole omni antennas that are positioned 180 apart and pointed 60 from zenith. The orbiter uses its high gain antenna to communicate with the lander, and the link margin is 4 dB. The data rate from the lander to the orbiter is up to 500 kbps. The telemetry data is convolutionally encoded. 3.3.3.2.4.9 enceladus-oL Lander integration
and test (i&t)
The lander is integrated and tested as a unit, in parallel with the orbiter (see Section 3.3.3.2.7). The lander I&T process is designed for planetary protection class IV, including cleaning at the launch site. The lander requires unique I&T facilities. A drop test facility is required to verify some of the landing techniques, including target acquisition, hazard avoidance, and correct responses to con tingencies. A hybrid simulator is used to test and verify those functions that cannot be completely tested by the drop test facility. A subset of the lander test equipment is maintained through the actual landing, so landing can be tested using the targeting maps acquired during the first polar campaign. 3.3.3.2.5 enceladus-oL Mission reliability Even with single fault tolerant design, the mission level Enceladus-OL reliability (a total of

3-35

ENCELADUS

18.3 years was used for this analysis) is low. The probability of mission success for the entire flight segment is 0.595, estimated at the 95% confidence level (i.e., in at least 95% of 1000 random cases evaluated by a Monte-Carlo model the reliability was at or above 0.595). Propulsion, thermal, and attitude control systems are the mission reliability drivers, and the effect is most pronounced on the orbiter and booster, which have significantly lon ger operating lives than the lander. Instrument and launch vehicle reliability were not addressed in this model, i.e., they were assumed 100% reli able. It is noted that the absolute values associated with this type of very early reliability estimate typically are considered to be less meaningful than the relative values among estimates (i.e., between the Enceladus-OL, Enceladus-O, and Saturn-OL estimates) and also tend to be con servative. However, these initial reliability results clearly indicate the need for special attention in future studies. 3.3.3.2.6 enceladus-oL orbital Debris Protection A 1.0 mm Kevlar sheet is used to reinforce MLI on the lander and to shield the lander from plume particles during pre-lander separation, and dur ing polar campaign operations. As discussed in Section 3.1.1.4, a maximum particle diameter of 2.0 mm and a maximum particle relative velocity of 500 m/s have been assumed. The 1.0 mm Kevlar sheet provides some margin against the 0.74 mm required facesheet thickness. Propellant tanks are also protected from micrometeorid impact during Earth flybys by a combination of external MLI over a 1.0 mm Kevlar panel, and internal MLI is offset sufficiently from the propellant tanks to act as a Whipple shield. This separation distance is 0.44 cm, or five times the particle diameter of 0.087 cm needed to penetrate the critical surface. The probability of collision with small objects during two Earth flybys is .001, an order of mag nitude below the maximum permitted probabil ity of .01, due mainly to the short amount of time the spacecraft spends near Earth. 3.3.3.2.7 enceladus-oL Mission Level i&t Parallel fabrication and component test of the booster, orbiter bus, orbiter instruments, lander bus, and lander instruments starts in January 2015. This is followed by parallel I&T for the same hardware elements starting in March 2016 (this phase includes lander drop testing). Instru ments are then integrated with the orbiter bus and lander bus starting in January 2017, fit checks are conducted with the booster, and parallel orbit er and lander I&T is conducted. In November 2017, the orbiter and lander are mated for I&T as a combined unit. In March 2018, the booster is integrated with the orbiter and lander and com bined booster/orbiter/lander I&T is conducted. The flight segment is ready for shipment to the launch site in June 2018 for a September 2018 launch. 3.3.4 enceladus-oL operational scenarios Table 3.3.4-1 identifies the driving operational scenarios for this mission concept. table 3.3.4-1: Enceladus-OL Driving Operations Scenarios
scenario Venus Flyby Earth Flyby Enceladus Orbit Insertion Titan/Rhea/Dione Flybys Enceladus Mapping Polar Campaign Landing Safety Power Navigation Data Volume Data Storage Lander Design Driver Thermal

The thermal environment drives the operations early in the mission during Venus and Earth flybys when the spacecraft is close to the Sun. During most of this time, and roughly inside of the Mars orbit radius, the bottom of Stage 1 is pointed to the Sun. This surface is covered with heat resistant ceramic cloth, similar to that used by Messenger, except for the thruster nozzles. Variable conductance radiators on the spacecraft provide for maximum radiating area during this phase, whereas radiator area can be closed down later in the mission when the solar environment is reduced. As this thermal pointing constraint re stricts the ability to point HGA, X-band omni an tennas are used for communications during most of this time. Using the omni antennas (data rate as low as 60 bps at maximum range during this phase) does not permit returning all the space craft housekeeping data except when the space craft is in the vicinity of the Earth. Instead, the flight software provides event messages and snap shots of the status of the spacecraft subsystems during the regularly scheduled DSN contacts. If

3-36

ENCELADUS

a problem is detected, the spacecraft can be ori ented briefly to use the HGA to dump the full set of housekeeping data. The plutonium in the ASRGs would be a po tential health hazard if the spacecraft were to en ter the atmosphere during the Earth flybys. This mission uses techniques that were used on Cassini to mitigate this risk. These techniques include ad ditional micrometeoroid protection for the pro pellant tanks, biasing the trajectory away from the Earth until 7-10 days before the flyby, and us ing special policies regarding uplinking real time commands during parts of the flyby. The booster provides the DV for the SOI burn and for targeting the Titan/Rhea elliptical orbit. The Titan/Rhea/Dione flyby phase uses gravity assists from Rhea and Dione to reduce the DV required to get into orbit around Enceladus. This phase takes 4.25 years and includes 47 flybys of these moons. This phase drives the navigation support for the mission. The ground navigation team plans the maneuvers required to target the flybys, monitors the maneuvers and flybys, and adjusts the subsequent plans as necessary. This phase begins after the apoapsis maneuver and in cludes four flybys of Titan to reduce the periap sis to Rhea, 30 flybys of Rhea to lower the orbit from Titan/Rhea to Rhea/Dione, and 13 flybys of Dione that result in a Dione/Enceladus orbit. At the end of this process, the orbit is about two days long. The number of navigation operations requires a navigation process that has the staff to respond promptly with orbit solutions and ma neuvers plans to safely operate the mission in this phase. The orbiter propulsion system provides the DV for the EOI maneuver and for small target ing maneuvers needed for the Rhea/Dione walkdown. Once in orbit around Enceladus, mapping and communication operations are conducted as discussed in Sections 3.3.3.1.3 and 3.3.3.2.3.7. Figure 3.3.4-1 shows the timeline during the mapping phase. The magnetometer is taking data all of the time, but the other instruments only take data infrequently. The instruments are pow ered on all of the time to maintain their stability. The orbiter has two polar campaigns, each 24 hours long. These polar campaigns drive the orbiter data storage as discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.3.7. The instruments generate data over both the north and south poles from 65 and poleward, the areas not well covered in the mapping orbit. Figure 3.3.4-2 shows the timeline for the instrument data taking in this phase. During the polar campaign, the orbiter passes through the plume on every orbit. The side of the orbiter with the thrusters and selected points on the nadir pointing side of the orbiter have blan kets to protect from plume particles. The lander timeline is shown in Figure 3.3.4-3. The instruments are on until they have completed their objectives, and then they are turned off to save power. The seismometer is on the longest, with a science requirement to be on for at least 5 days. Over the nominal eight-day lifetime, the lander generates 5.22 Gbits of data. This data is transferred at least once per day to the orbiter as described in Section 3.3.3.2.3.7.

1 Enceladus Orbit Around Saturn = 1.37 days Orbit 1 Orbit 2 Orbit 3 Orbit 4 Orbit 5 Spacecraft Orbits Around Enceladus in ~ 6.3 hours Orbit 6

Saturn Eclipse 2.6 hours Enceladus Eclipse 1 - 1.5 hours DSN Contact 9 hours Thermal Mapper Visible/NIR Mapper Laser Altimeter Radio Science Mag Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer Dust Microanalyzer

EN029

Figure 3.3.4-1: Enceladus-OL Mapping Phase Timeline

3-37

ENCELADUS

1 Enceladus Orbit Around Saturn 1.37 days Saturn Eclipse 2.6 hours Spacecraft Orbits Around Enceladus in ~ 4.3 hours

Enceladus Eclipse South Pole North Pole

DSN Contact Thermal Mapper Visible/NIR Mapper Laser Altimeter Radio Science Mag GCMS Dust Microanalyzer

Plane Change Maneuver

Plane Change Maneuver South Pole North Pole

EN030

Figure 3.3.4-2: Enceladus-OL Polar Campaign Timeline

Day 1 Panoramic Imaging Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8

Plume Monitoring

Lander Cameras Seismometer Radio Science Sampling Arm Surface Chemistry Package Laser Desorption Mass Spec Surface Ice Oxidant Detector

EN031

Figure 3.3.4-3: Enceladus-OL Lander Instrument Timeline 3.3.5 enceladus-oL Planetary Protection Approach The lander is designed and cleaned to planetary protection level IV. Additionally, it is assumed the booster will separate after insertion into the Titan/Rhea elliptical orbit. Analysis that dem onstrates the booster will have less than a 1x10-4 probability of inadvertently contaminating any icy moon inside of Titans radius has not been done, and is a recommended future study. For the purposes of this study, it was presumed the booster would need to be cleaned to planetary protection level IV. 3.3.6 enceladus-oL Major open issues and trades 3.3.6.1 Flight Dynamics and DV reserve A DV reserve of 500 m/s has been held to ac count for uncertainties in the trajectory modeling up through Saturn capture and for uncertain ties in Enceladus orbit stability. Further study is required to optimize the trajectory assumptions used, as well as to explore other possible paths to Enceladus that might be shorter or less expensive. Further study is also required to investigate the stability of the Enceladus orbit. 3.3.6.2 radiation environment The discussion in Section 3.3.3.2.3.6 in dicates radiation shielding for electrical com ponents needs to be doubled from 2.54 mm to 5.08 mm to assure TID levels below 100 krad, if results from SATRAD are to be used and if no reduction in the radiation environment due to the presence of the neutral gas torus in the vi cinity of Enceladus is assumed. Additionally, the Saturn radiation models should be updated based on Cassini experience.

3-38

ENCELADUS

3.3.6.3 reliability 3.3.6.3.1 Mission reliability estimate The overall mission reliability estimate (59.5% at 95% confidence level) discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.5 indicates the need to conduct an early probabilistic risk assessment to identify design or operations changes that could improve reliability for the most likely failure modes. 3.3.6.3.2 hibernation Mode The cruise phase, from the last Earth flyby un til SOI, is almost six years long. The use of Hiber nation mode, soon to be used on New Horizons, should be investigated. In Hibernation mode, the spacecraft spins for stability, some spacecraft subsystems are turned off, and communication is limited to once per week via beacons that in dicate whether the spacecraft is either in a safe state or whether it needs ground intervention. Hibernation mode could save operations costs, as operations staff is reduced. It could also increase overall mission reliability as a result of reducing the operating lifetime of some of the spacecraft components. 3.3.6.4 Landing operations Further trade studies are needed on the attitude sensors. Additional sensors, such as a star tracker, could provide a more robust landing design that would better protect from unexpected deviations from the nominal landing trajectory. The thrusters induce variation in the images used to locate the landing site. Work is required to understand how to compensate for this motion, and understand the implications on the image processing speed. A trade study to evaluate the use of a pressure regulated (constant thrust) propulsion system vs. a blowdown (non-constant thrust) system, in cluding requirements for software, is also recom mended. 3.3.6.5 Fault Detection and correction The fault detection and correction approach for the critical burns needs to be better defined to en able a better understanding of how a failure in one of the redundant booster or orbiter main thrust ers affects achieving orbit insertion and attitude stability for the remainder of the burn. 3.3.6.6 Mapping Duty cycle The mapping orbit lifetime was determined by the mapping time (12 days) divided by the communication bandwidth limited duty cycle of 1.85%. In the 12-day mapping time, all areas are imaged once; however some areas are imaged multiple times. The science objective is to image the area once, so the mission lifetime could be re duced after the analysis of the duration required to image everything once is performed. 3.3.6.7 communications 3.3.6.7.1 science Downlink Evaluate reducing the data quantity (e.g., via compression or editing) or increasing the trans mitted data rate (e.g., via a larger HGA or in creased power) to reduce the time required to complete the primary mission. This would reduce both the cost (this phase has the highest Phase E staffing) and the risk of a failure prior to complet ing the primary science phase. 3.3.6.7.2 Medium Gain Antenna Evaluate use of a medium gain antenna to in crease the link margin for command uplink and for telemetry downlink link between the orbiter and the DSN when the HGA is unavailable. 3.3.6.8 staging and Booster Disposal strategy Determine the optimal strategy for staging with respect to delivered mass, cost, and com plexity. The study also should assess the optimal location for booster separation and should define trajectories that assure the booster will have a less than 1x10-4 probability of inadvertently contami nating an icy moon. 3.3.7 enceladus-oL technology needs The Enceladus-OL mission uses existing tech nology with the single exception of the hazard avoidance system for the lander. This system is re quired to autonomously identify landing hazards such as steep slopes or rough terrain and guide the lander to a safe landing site. NASA is cur rently investigating hazard avoidance sensors and algorithms for landing on the Moon and Mars. The Autonomous Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology (ALHAT) is one of several technol ogy initiatives in this area. ALHAT is currently at

3-39

ENCELADUS

TRL 4 and is expected to be at TRL 6 in FY 2011, prior to the need date for the Enceladus-OL mis sion. An Enceladus-OL mission should be able to adapt these techniques rather than have to design entirely new techniques. If the technology were not mature enough to use on this mission, the alternative would be to add the capability to image potential landing sites at higher resolution and identify sites without hazards. In addition, the lander could be made more robust to hazards for example, the ability to operate successfully on steeper slopes or to land safely amid larger rocks/ice chunks. 3.3.8 enceladus-oL technical risk Assessment 3.3.8.1 Mission Lifetime The 18.3-year mission life poses inherent de sign risks. Several components are not qualified for this lifetime. For example, the ASRG is rated for 14 years of operation and the booster and or biter pyrovalves have been qualified for 10 years. The long mission duration is also an opera tional risk, in maintaining expertise that is devel oped in phase C/D until it is needed, potentially 20 years later. The development effort includes knowledge capture, to document the designs and any insights that result from the integration and test of the instruments. The mission maintains the high fidelity simulator for the orbiter and lander, to test new operations sequences and any flight software changes before their use onboard. The mission also maintains the unique landing test facility, so that the landing can be simulated before it is actually done, using the maps that are generated from the orbiter observations. 3.3.8.2 enceladus Gravity Model The current Enceladus triaxial gravity model provides for a 45 orbit that is stable for long pe riods of time and permits a 24-hour polar orbit. The model can get minor adjustments based on future Cassini flybys, but wont be significantly improved until an orbiter reaches Enceladus. The Encleadus-OL orbiter has some fuel allocated for maintenance in the 45 orbit. If the gravity field is found significantly different in ways that decrease the stability of the orbits, it may compromise the science goals for the polar orbits, for in-situ plume sampling, and possibly for the mission duration required to completely map the lower latitudes. This risk can be mitigated by developing contin gency plans using a variety of plausible gravita tional models and understanding where the stable orbits are for each one. 3.3.9 schedule The Enceladus-OL design uses a development schedule of 72 months from the start of Phase B to launch. The durations of Phase B, C, and D are 12 months, 15 months, and 49 months, respec tively. The length of Phase D is driven principally by the length of time need to fabricate, integrate and test the booster, orbiter, and lander systems both separately and in combined configurations, and includes the four month period immediately following launch (i.e., the duration of Phase D up until launch is 45 months).

3-40

ENCELADUS

3.4 enceladus orbiter (enceladus-o) 3.4.1 enceladus-o Architecture overview The Enceladus-O mission concept includes an Enceladus orbiter without a lander. As EnceladusO shares many design and operating character istics with Enceladus-OL, only a discussion of the aspects that differ is provided in this section, along with significant study results. References to Section 3.3.3 are given where design and oper ating characteristics are shared with EnceladusOL. Enceladus-O uses dual mode bi-propellant N2O4 / hydrazine propulsion in the booster and in the orbiter. The orbiter instrument suite is the same as that in the Enceladus-OL design with the exception that a sounding radar is included. The launch and ground segments are identical to that described in Section 3.3.1. 3.4.2 enceladus-o science investigation With an Enceladus orbiter alone, most of the science goals in Table 2.1.1-1 can be met with the addition of a radar sounder to the strawman payload, though Composition and Tectonics, etc., are better addressed with a landed package, as shown in Table 2.4.6-1. The goals are identi cal to those for the Enceladus-OL concept dis cussed in Section 3.3.2, with the exception that the Enceladus-O concept adds:
Orbiter Science Drivers:

3.4.3 enceladus-o Mission Design The following sections focus principally on the flight segment. Interfaces with the ground and launch segments will be summarized only, as the configuration of these segments was given in the Study Groundrules. 3.4.3.1 enceladus-o Flight Dynamics 3.4.3.1.1 enceladus-o Launch Window The time of flight and launch capability are de fined using the same 20-day launch window and constraints as used for Enceladus-OL and shown in Table 3.3.3-1, and the VVEES trajectory is the same as used for Enceladus-OL and shown in Table 3.3.3-2. 3.4.3.1.2 enceladus-o capture at saturn and rhea Walkdown As for Enceladus-OL, there are two key enablers for the Enceladus-O mission. The first is staging, discussed in Section 3.3.3.2, and the second is the use of Rhea flybys discussed in Section 3.1.1.2.2 and in Figures 3.4.3-1A and 3.4.3-1B, to scrub orbital energy prior to conducting the EOI burn. A total of 30 Rhea flybys is used to reduce DV by 1650 m/s. The cost of adding these 30 flybys is an additional 2.5 years in mission lifetime. The trajectory up to the point of initiating the Rhea flybys is identical to that for Enceladus-OL, and orbital operations at Enceladus are the same as described in Section 3.3.3.1.3 for EnceladusOL, with the exception that there is no lander to deploy or operate.

radar subsurface sounding Ice shell thickness, structure

The incremental (relative to Table 3.3.2-1) strawman orbiter payload for Enceladus-O is shown in Table 3.4.2-1.

table 3.4.2-1: Enceladus-O Incremental Strawman Orbiter Payload

Preferred Location and Aperture Pointing Direction Duty cycle (in enceladus orbit) reqd Pointing Accuracy (arc sec) % new Development reqd ~70% new Dimensions LxWxh (or L x dia.) (cm) Power (W) instrument Precursor instrument Europa IDT report Mass (kg) Data rate (kbps) 30 notes on Downlink

Sounding RADAR

20

25%

Antenna 10mx2.6m Electronics 10x15x10

Nadirpointing

3600

3-41

ENCELADUS

Post-Apoapsis Titan/Rhea Orbit Titan Orbit

2:1 Orbit 1:1 Orbit 2:3 Orbit Titan/Rhea Orbit

Rhea Orbit

Enceladus Orbit Rhea/Enceladus Orbit

EN032

Figure 3.4.3-1A: Multiple Titan Resonant Orbits Figure 3.4.3-1B: Titan/Rhea/Enceladus Resonant Orbits 3.4.3.1.3 enceladus-o orbit Design The orbit design for Enceladus-O is as discussed in Section 3.3.3.1.3, with the exception that the Enceladus-O concept has no lander. 3.4.3.1.4 enceladus-o timeline of Key events Table 3.4.3-1 gives a high level description timeline of key events in the 17.3 year mission. With the exception that 1.0 year for Dione fly bys is excluded in the Enceladus-O mission de sign, the trajectory phases are similar to those in Figures 3.3.3-9 and 3.3.3-10. 3.4.3.1.5 enceladus-o Mission DV Budget The total DV for the Enceladus-O trajectory, including maneuvers required to enter orbit about Enceladus and conduct 2.4 years of mapping op erations, is 4977 m/s as shown in Table 3.4.3-2. This DV is used to size the booster and orbiter propulsion systems and includes the DV required to accomplish two round-trip plane changes from the 45 mapping orbit to the polar mapping orbit. It also includes a reserve of 10% plus an addition al reserve of 500 m/s. In the Enceladus-O study, the 5% tax to account for propellant used in nonDV attitude control maneuvers is accounted for as a propellant tax (not shown here), rather than as a DV tax. table 3.4.3-1: Key Events in 17.3-Year Enceladus-O Mission Timeline
Date September 29 February 27 April 22 June 15 June 15 June 10 May 4 August 8 August August January Year 2018 2019 2020 2020 2024 2025 2030 2033 2034 2035 2036 event Launch/Checkout Venus Flyby 1 Venus Flyby 2 Earth Flyby 1 Earth Flyby 2 Mid course trajectory maneuver Saturn Orbit Insertion Enceladus Orbit Insertion Polar Campaign (24 hours) Polar Campaign (24 hours) End of Mission

3.4.3.2 enceladus-o Flight segment Design The flight segment configuration, mass, and subsystem design approach is discussed in the following sections.

3-42

ENCELADUS

table 3.4.3-2: Enceladus-O Mission DV Budget

Maneuver Launch TCM 1: Target Venus 1 TCM 2: Target Venus 2 TCM 3: Target Earth 1 TCM 4: Target Earth 2 Mid Course Correction Saturn Orbit Injection (SOI) Post SOI TCMs Apoapsis Burn Titan Resonant TCMs (as needed) Target Titan 2:1 Orbit Target Titan 1:1 Orbit Target Titan 2:3 Orbit Target Titan 16:31 Orbit Target Enceladus sub total transit to saturn Match Enceladus Orbit Enceladus Plane Changes (4) Orbit Maintenance (2.4 years) sub total enceladus (no rhea Flybys) total (no rhea Flybys)

DV (m/s)
0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 650.0 10.0 350.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1120.0 3780.0 220.0 400.0 50.0 4450.0 5570.0

Acs tax (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

DV (m/s) with DV reserve effective Acs tax (%) DV (m/s)

0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 650.0 10.0 350.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1120.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 715.0 11.0 385.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 1232.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4158.0 242.0 440.0 55.0 4895.0 6127.0 1650.0 3245.0 4477.0 500.0 4977.0

enceladus orbit insertion, ops & Maint 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3780.0 220.0 400.0 50.0 4450.0 5570.0 0.0 1650.0 2800.0 3920.0

Add 2.5 years & 30 rhea Flybys

DV Reduction*
sub total enceladus (with rhea Flybys) total (with rhea Flybys)

1650.0 2800.0 3920.0 500.0 4420.0

DV reserve (held for Modeling uncertainty)

total DV with reserve

* Relative to an approach which enters a Titan-Enceladus elliptical orbit prior to circularizing at Enceladus

3-43

ENCELADUS

3.4.3.2.1 enceladus-o configuration Figures 3.4.3-2 through 3.4.3-4 shows the general arrangement of the flight segment. The flight segment consists of the booster (also re ferred to as Step 1) and the orbiter (referred to as Step 2). The orbiter configuration is also referred to as Stage 2, where the booster + orbiter configu ration is referred to as Stage 1. 3.4.3.2.2 enceladus-o Mass Properties Table 3.4.3-3 gives a top level summary of flight segment mass by stage, including mass contingen cy. The Stage 1 gross mass is 5810 kg, including the instrument suite shown in Table 3.4.3-5 and propellant. This leaves an 8.4% lift margin on the Delta 4050H lift capability of 6300 kg. table 3.4.3-3: Enceladus-O Mission Level Summary Mass Statement
Launch Vehicle Margin (%) Launch Vehicle capability (kg) Stage 1 (B+O) Initial - Stage 1 Propellant* Stage 1 Dry - Step 1 (Booster) Dry Stage 2 (Orbiter) Initial - Stage 2 Propellant* Stage 2 Dry w/instruments * Includes residuals and loading uncertainty enceladus-o 8.4 6300 Mass (kg) 5810 3343 2466 576 1890 1048 842

Scaling using this approach gives only a first order approximation and should be used with caution as discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.2. A fur ther breakout of mass by subsystem for each step is provided in Tables 3.4.3-4 and 3.4.3-5. Pro pellant was computed on the basis of mass with contingency (i.e., the allocation mass). 3.4.3.2.3 enceladus-o Booster and orbiter (B&o) Description Booster and orbiter subsystems are similar in many cases (e.g., Mechanical, Avionics, Flight Software, and Attitude Control) to those dis cussed for Enceladus-OL design and will not be discussed here except where significant differ ences exist or an item warrants specific attention. Note that the sounding radar is similar in size, shape, and deployment approach to the magne tometer boom. Interfaces that existed with the lander in the Enceladus-OL design do not exist in the Enceladus-O design. Subsystems are 1-fault tolerant for credible failures, consistent with NPR 8705.4 guidance for Class A missions. 3.4.3.2.3.1 enceladus-o (B&o) Power subsystem Power for the booster and orbiter is provided by three ASRGs and a 40 Ahr rechargeable lithi um ion battery located on the orbiter. The sizing conditions associated with the ASRGs and bat tery are the same as used in the Enceladus-OL design with the exception of having one year less degradation on the ASRGs (the sounding radar operates selectively and is duty cycled such that it doesnt increase the total instrument power re quired). After completing the Enceladus-O study, it was determined (per ref. (f)) that an individual ASRG could not be considered single fault toler ant and a redundant ASRG would be required. This means a fourth ASRG would have to be added to the Enceladus-O design. The discussion of battery DoD in Section 3.3.3.2.3.2 applies equally to Enceladus-O. 3.4.3.2.3.2 enceladus-o (B&o) Propulsion subsystem The Enceladus-O booster and orbiter dual mode N2O4 / hydrazine propulsion systems are similar to those for the Enceladus-OL design with two exceptions. The first difference is in the number and size of the propellant and pressurant tanks. The Enceladus-O design booster and orbiter have single N2O4 and hydrazine tanks. The booster has

Approximate sensitivities of Stage 1 gross mass to changes in the masses of each step can be determined as in Section 3.3.3.2.2. Values for mi/mf = 2.36, and 2.24 for Stages 1 and 2, respectively. Values for mi/mf depend only on DV and effective Isp, with g and being constant, and can vary slightly depending on how propel lant residuals are book kept. Compounding the effect of these changes, the resulting values for the change in Stage 1 initial mass with changes in Step 1 and 2 masses are shown below.
D Stage 1i / D Step 1Dry = (mi/mf)1 = 2.36 D Stage 1i / D Step 2Dry = (mi/mf)2 (mi/mf)1 = 5.29

3-44

ENCELADUS

Mag Boom Stowed Radar Antenna Not Shown Orbiter 1.5-m Fixed HGA ASRGs (3 Flt Units) Propulsion Module DELTA 4050 H-19 Fairing Static Envelope

Stage #1 Step #1

Stage #2 Step #2

EN033

Figure 3.4.3-2: View Looking at Enceladus-O +Z Face and Showing Compatibility with Delta 4050H Fairing Static Envelope

Radar antenna not shown

Top View

Y Z Step #2 Separation Plane Step #1 6.26 Y X Side Views

EN034

Figure 3.4.3-3: Three View of Enceladus-O

3-45

ENCELADUS

Instrument Deck Carbon Fiber Skin/Carbon Fiber Core

Kinematic Mounts - Titanium
Main Truss Structure Carbon Fiber Tube / Al Aly Corners ASRG Mounting Ring Carbon Fiber Custom Separation System Sep Nuts & Springs
Al Aly/Steel
Main Truss Structure Carbon Fiber Tube / Al Aly Corners Step #1 Propulsion Structure Carbon Fiber Lower Truss Structure Carbon Fiber Tube / Al Aly Corners
EN035

Fixed 1.5 m HGA

Step #2

Figure 3.4.3-4: Major Components of Enceladus-O (View Looking at X Face) table 3.4.3-4: Enceladus-O Step 1 (Propulsion Module) Mass Statement
step 1 (Propulsion Module) Dry Mass Estimate (Kg) Mechanical Attitude Control Thermal Propulsion Power C&DH Communications Propulsion Module Harness Propulsion Module total Dry Mass 211 0 12 219 0 0 0 2 443 % Total Dry Mass 48 0 3 49 0 0 0 0 100 % Contingency 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Allocation (Kg) 274 0 15 284 0 0 0 3 576

step 1 (Propulsion Module) Wet Mass Estimate (Kg) Propulsion Module Dry Mass Propellant Mass* Propulsion Module Wet Mass * Includes residuals and loading uncertainty 443 3343 3787 % Total Wet Mass 12 88 100 % Contingency 30 0 Allocation (Kg) 576 3343 3920

3-46

ENCELADUS

table 3.4.3-5: Enceladus-O Step 2 (Orbiter) Mass Statement

step 2 (orbiter) science Payload Estimate (Kg) Thermal Mapper VIS/NIR Mapper Laser Altimeter Radio Science Magnetometer GCMS Dust Micro Analyzer Sounding Radar Payload total 11 10 10 1 4 10 10 9 65 % Total Dry Mass 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 10 % Contingency 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Allocation (Kg) 14 13 13 1 5 13 13 12 85

step 2 (orbiter) spacecraft Bus Estimate (Kg) Mechanical Attitude Control Thermal Propulsion Power C&DH Communications Spacecraft Harness Bus total 223 26 27 104 73 39 55 35 583 % Total Dry Mass 34 4 4 16 11 6 9 5 90 % Contingency 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Allocation (Kg) 290 34 35 135 95 51 72 46 758

step 2 (orbiter) Dry Mass Estimate (Kg) Science Payload Total Bus Total orbiter Dry Mass 65 583 648 % Total Dry Mass 10 90 100 % Contingency 30 30 30 Allocation (Kg) 85 758 842

step 2 (orbiter) Wet Mass Estimate (Kg) Orbiter Dry Mass Propellant Mass* orbiter Wet Mass * Includes residuals & loading uncertainty 648 1048 1696 % Total Wet Mass 38 62 100 % Contingency 30 0 Allocation (Kg) 842 1048 1890

3-47

ENCELADUS

three helium pressurant tanks, where the orbiter has one. The second difference is the system is operated in bi-propellant mode during cruise prior to SOI. This results in a higher booster effective Isp than attained for Enceladus-OL. This has the dis advantage of exposing the oxidizer thruster valves to N2O4 during the 11.7-year cruise to Saturn. Pe riodic flushing burns would likely be required to limit the potential for iron nitrate contamination. The propellant distribution between the booster and orbiter resulted from an optimization study that maximized mass available for the orbiter. The combination of maneuvers conducted in bi propellant and monopropellant mode over the total propellant expended results in an effective Isp for the booster and orbiter of 306 s and 303 s, respectively. 3.4.3.2.3.3 enceladus-o (B&o) thermal control subsystem The Enceladus-O thermal design is similar to that for Enceladus-OL except in the design of the radiators. Where the Enceladus-OL design uses radiator panels with embedded VCHPs facing in the -X and +X direction, the Enceladus-O radiator use louvered radiators facing in the +Y direction as shown in Figure 3.4.3-5. The Enceladus-OL radiator configuration is expected to have perfor mance advantages relative to the Enceladus-O configuration.
Louver/Radiator Assembly

Table 3.4.3-6. These volumes assume 10:1 com pression on the visible/near infared mapper and include instrument and spacecraft housekeeping along with 30% contingency. Daily data collection in the 45 orbit is limited by the orbiter downlink rate and by a communication window of 9.0 hours per day, per the study Study Groundrules. A peri od of 8.14 hours is required to downlink 1.17 Gb at 40 kbps, and Enceladus eclipses the orbiter line of sight to Earth for about 1.25 hour per commu nication pass. This results in a total communica tion pass time of about 9.4 hours, which exceeds the 9.0 hour/day allocation. The orbiter will not transmit to Earth during the polar orbit to avoid time lost to slewing. Instead, the polar orbit data will be stored for transmission once back in the 45 orbit. This transmission will require about 18 passes of about eight hours each at the DSN at 40 kbps for each day of the 90 deg orbit. The discussion of the omni antenna link margin in Section 3.3.3.2.3.7 applies to the Enceladus-O configuration. table 3.4.3-6: Enceladus-O Data Stored and Transmitted
total Data stored (Gb) Orbiter 90 deg orbit Orbiter 45 deg orbit 21.20 1.24 total Data transmitted (Gb) 20.03 1.17

3.4.3.2.4 enceladus-o Mission reliability

Top side shields ASRG Thermal Radiation

Heat pipes used

to transfer component
heat to louver/radiator panel

Louver/Radiator Assembly

EN036

Figure 3.4.3-5: Enceladus-O Orbiter Radiator Configuration (View Looking at +Y Face) 3.4.3.2.3.4 enceladus-o (B&o) communica tions subsystem The communications system design is similar to that for Enceladus-OL. However, the total data volumes differ slightly. They are summarized for the polar orbit and the 45 mapping orbit in

Even with single fault tolerant design, over all reliability for this mission lifetime (a to tal of 17.3 years was used for this analysis) is low. The probability of mission success of .604 is estimated at the 95% confidence level (see Section 3.3.3.2.5). Propulsion, thermal, and at titude control systems are the mission reliability drivers. This configuration had no redundancy in ASRGs. But due to the lack of reliability infor mation available for ASRGs that operate beyond 14 years, this did not significantly affect the re sults relative to those for Enceladus-OL. 3.4.3.2.5 enceladus-o Mission Level i&t Parallel fabrication and component test of the booster, orbiter bus, and the orbiter instruments starts in April 2015. This is followed by parallel I&T for the same hardware elements starting in June 2016. Instruments are then integrated with

3-48

ENCELADUS

the orbiter bus starting in April 2017, fit checks are conducted with the booster, and orbiter I&T is conducted. In February 2018, the orbiter and booster are mated for I&T as a combined unit. The flight segment is ready for shipment to the launch site in June 2018 for a September 2018 launch. 3.4.4 enceladus-o operational scenarios Table 3.4.4-1 identifies the driving operational scenarios for this mission concept. table 3.4.4-1: Enceladus-O Driving Operations Scenarios
scenario Venus Flyby Earth Flyby Enceladus Orbit Insertion Titan/Rhea Enceladus Mapping Polar Campaign Driver Thermal Safety Power Navigation Data Volume Data Storage

discussed in Section 3.3.6. Additional trades to consider for this concept include: 3.4.6.1 single vs. two stage Vehicle / Booster Disposal strategy While this mission concept baselined a two stage propulsion system, if may be of interest to investigate whether the launch margin available will permit use of a single stage system. A trade study is required to determine the benefits of op timal staging with respect to cost and complexity. The study also should define trajectories that as sure the booster will have less than a 1x10-4 prob ability of inadvertently contaminating any icy moon to enable cleaning the booster to planetary protection level III rather than to level IV. 3.4.6.2 reduction in communication time In addition to the trade discussed in Section 3.3.6, evaluate solutions to reduce con tact time between the orbiter and the ground station from 9.4 hours/day to the allocated 9.0 hours/day. Include potential reduction in instru ment complement (e.g., the sounding radar was removed for Enceladus-OL design). 3.4.6.3 Additional AsrG Add a fourth ASRG to make the power system 1-fault tolerant. 3.4.6.4 use of Acs thrusters Prior to soi The approach used for the Enceladus-OL concept (uses only ACS thrusters prior to SOI) is recommended for Enceladus-O. A study to determine the reduction in effective Isp and the corresponding increase in launch mass should be conducted. Using only monopropellant up to SOI will inhibit formation of iron nitrates on the main engine oxidizer valves. 3.4.6.5 radiator configuration Evaluate Enceladus-OL radiator design and lo cation for use on Enceladus-O. 3.4.7 enceladus-o technology needs The Enceladus-O mission uses existing tech nology. No new technology was identified.

These are a subset of the scenarios for the Enceladus-OL mission, without the landing. The only significant difference is that Dione is not used during the gravity assist phase at Saturn. The other differences were minor, such as slightly different data volumes due to the slightly differ ent instrument complement. 3.4.5 enceladus-o Planetary Protection (& Disposal) The booster separates after conducting part of the EOI burn (after completing the Rhea flybys) and will be in an orbit with periapsis at Enceladus and apoapsis below Rhea. Analysis that demon strates the booster will have less than a 1x10-4 probability of inadvertently contaminating any icy moon inside of Rheas radius has not been done, and is the subject of a recommended future study. For the purposes of this study, it was pre sumed the booster would need to be cleaned to planetary protection level IV. 3.4.6 enceladus-o Major open issues and trades With the exception of the lander element, the major open issues and trades are similar to those

3-49

ENCELADUS

3.4.8 enceladus-o technical risks The Enceladus-O design risks are a subset of the Enceladus-OL mission risks mission life time and its impact on component qualification and knowledge retention, and the Enceladus gravity model. 3.4.9 enceladus-o schedule The Enceladus-O design uses a development schedule of 66 months from the start of Phase B to launch. The durations of Phase B, C, and D are 12 months, 12 months, and 46 months, respectively. The length of Phase D is driven prin cipally by the length of time need to fabricate, integrate and test the booster and orbiter systems both separately and in combined configurations, and includes the four month period immediately following launch (i.e., the duration of Phase D up until launch is 42 months).

3-50

ENCELADUS

3.5 saturn orbiter with soft Lander (saturn-oL) 3.5.1 saturn-oL Architecture overview The Saturn-OL mission includes a Saturn or biter with a soft lander package. Relative to the Enceladus-O and Enceladus-OL designs, it fea tures modest DV requirements and overall mission duration. In exchange, it provides less complete mapping of the Enceladus surface and higherspeed plume flybys. It includes a three stage flight segment with xenon ion propulsion for the SEP module, dual mode bi-propellant N2O4 / hydra zine chemical propulsion for the orbiter and bi propellant chemical propulsion for the lander. The launch and ground segments are identical to that described in Section 3.3.1. 3.5.2 saturn-oL science investigation All of the science goals in Table 2.1.1-1 can be met by a properly instrumented Saturn orbiter and lander, as shown in Table 2.4.6-1, but with much less surface coverage and higher flyby ve locities than from an Enceladus orbiter. Thus, Surface Processes, Tectonics and Tidal Heat ing are not addressed as well from Saturn orbit. Saturn System Interactions goals are met, but with higher flyby velocities of the plume mate rial; intact plume particles cannot be examined, but a high velocity dust impact experiment can be used (similar to, but more capable than that on Cassini) to obtain some information about the plume particles. In addition, laser altimetry will require much more careful design to provide ade quate cross over tracks, and precision of the grav ity coefficients and shape and gravity Love num bers, and magnetic sounding data, will be lower. The soft lander package will provide seismometry and detailed chemistry, but will only have a single chance to communicate data to the orbiter, un less redesigned for a longer life. The lander entry, landing and descent sequence will also be fur ther complicated by the high flyby velocities, and the same difficulties with surface coupling and anchoring apply as in the Enceladus-OL case. Tables 3.5.2-1 and 3.5.2-2 show the Saturn-OL orbiter and lander strawman payload suites.
Orbiter Science Drivers:

Determine Love numbers with laser altimetry and Doppler tracking, and determine interior conductivity with magnetic sounding Constrain interior structure, and presence or absence of a global ocean In-situ analysis of plume gas and dust compo nents Understand cryovolcanic processes, organic chemistry

Lander Science Drivers:

Detailed in-situ analysis of surface chemistry (esp. organic) Composition, cryovolcanism, habitabil ity, presence of key amino acids and biotic compounds? High-frequency and low-frequency seismom etry Ice shell thickness, structure, cryovolca nism Imaging Surface processes

3.5.3 saturn-oL Mission Design The following sections focus principally on the flight segment. Interfaces with the ground and launch segments will be summarized only, as the configuration of these segments was given in the Study Groundrules. 3.5.3.1 saturn-oL Flight Dynamics 3.5.3.1.1 Launch Window The Saturn-OL trajectory combines SEP and chemical propulsion to achieve orbit around Saturn and is designed as described in Sections 3.1.1.2.1.1 and 3.1.1.2.2. The launch date for the 7.5 year cruise to Saturn is 25 March 2018 and was selected to enable Enceladus mapping to start after sunrise at the Enceladus south pole (oc curs in ~mid 2025). The SEP stage operates for 1024 days. During that time it enters a phasing orbit (see Figure 3.1.1-1), which extends beyond the orbit of Mars, and conducts a single Earth flyby at 688 days (~1.9 years) at an altitude of 1000 km. The SEP system is sized to be consis tent with an initial mass of 6525 kg and a maxi mum C3 of 19.2 km2/s2 over a 20 day launch win dow. The corresponding Vhp at Saturn arrival is

Surface mapping in visible, near-IR and ther mal IR Understand tectonics, cryovolcanism, sur face processes

3-51

table 3.5.2-1: Saturn-OL Strawman Orbiter Payload

Dimensions LxWxh (or L x dia.) (cm) 55x29x37 notes on Downlink Preferred reqd Location and Pointing % new Aperture Pointing Accuracy Development Direction (arc sec) reqd Nadir, radiator with ~50% (longer sky view wavelength capability) 0% new Data Volume per encounter (Gb) 0.032 Precursor instrument THEMIS

instrument Thermal Mapper

Visible Mapper

50x50x30

0.308

includes 10:1 compression, handled by C&DH includes 10:1 Nadir, radiator with compression, sky view handled by C&DH Nadir 360

New Horizons MVIC

Near IR Mapper

50x50x30

2.4

~30% (longer wavelength capability)

New Horizons LEISA

ENCELADUS

3-52
42x45x36 (optics; 21x29x12 electronics) 10x10x10 0 0 0 10x10x15 plus 10m boom 0.001 N/A N/A 100% within +/- 5000 km of Enceladus c/a 100% 100% within +/- 10000 km of Enceladus 10x10x10 0

Laser Altimeter

Mass Power (kg) (W) Duty cycle 11 14 100% within +/- 500 km of Enceladus c/a, 20% duty cycle (alternating with cameras) within +/- 5000 km. 10 6 100% within +/- 500 km of Enceladus c/a, 20% duty cycle (alternating with Thermal IR and NIR cameras) within +/- 5000 km. 10 6 100% within +/- 500 km of Enceladus c/a, 20% duty cycle (alternating with Thermal IR and vis cameras) within +/5000 km. 11.7 33 100% within +/- 500 km of Enceladus c/a ~50% new development N/A N/A Ram direction 0% new 0% new

LRO LOLA

Radio Science

1.5

Magnetometer

INGMS

10

25

Messenger heritage NGIMS, MSL SAM

Dust Analyzer

100% within +/- 10000 km of Enceladus, 20% rest of the orbit. note: c/a denotes closest approach

Ram direction

N/A

~30-50% (pyrolysis heater unit, sample collector interface, miniature mass spec, wet chemistry?) ~60% Cassini CDA, Stardust CIDA

table 3.5.2-2: Saturn-OL Strawman Lander Payload

Power (W) 5 Duty cycle Panorama followed by staggered plume monitoring Dimensions LxWxh (or L x dia.) (cm)

instrument Lander camera (two)

Mass (kg) 0.6

Radio Science part of comm part of comm 100% during system comm. passes system Seismometer 2.3 1 100% 2.5x2x7.5 15x19x11 120 includes 2:1 compression, handled by C&DH 28 N/A N/A 2.24 coupled to surface N/A 25 5

Preferred reqd Data Location and Pointing % new Volume notes on Aperture Pointing Accuracy Development Precursor (kb/day) Downlink Direction (arc sec) reqd instrument 144 includes 5:1 1 meter above N/A 0% MER compression, surface, panoramic PANCAM handled by C&DH N/A N/A 0% 0% TBD TBD

Surface chemistry package LDMS

Alternates w/ other chemistry experiments Alternates w/ other chemistry experiments N/A N/A Alternates w/ other chemistry experiments 2.9x2.5x.89 150 includes 2:1 compression, handled by C&DH

Netlander SEIS Part of ExoMars Urey ExoMars MOMA N/A N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD

ENCELADUS

3-53
1 5 1

3 1.3

Sampling Arm Piezoelectric Corer Surface Ice Oxidant Detector

0.3

Europa Lander Part of ExoMars Urey

ENCELADUS

5.57 km/s. A similar launch opportunity exists every 12 months. 3.5.3.1.2 Multiple Passes of enceladus In the mapping orbit, the spacecraft will pass by Enceladus every 8.22 days as depicted in Figure 3.5.3-1. more DV than required for the Enceladus-OL concept, and the communications visibility is more constrained. 3.5.3.1.4 saturn-oL timeline of Key events Figures 3.5.3-3, 3.5.3-4, and Table 3.5.3-1 give high level descriptions of the trajectory phas es and corresponding timeline of key events in the 9.5 year mission. table 3.5.3-1: Key Events in 9.5 Year Saturn-OL Mission Timeline
Date March 25 <6 Sun 33 flybys for imaging,
12 through plume
15 flybys for radio science 2 flybys for lander ops
EN039

Enceladus has 6 orbits

for every orbiter orbit
Earth Lander

Titan

Year 2018 2020 2021 2025 2026 2026 2026 2027 Launch

event Earth Flyby Jettison SEP Module Saturn Orbit Insertion Start Enceladus Flybys Lander Separation Complete Lander Ops Disposal

~ February 15 January 19 September 6 July 21 ~ August 31 ~ September 8 ~ September 5

Figure 3.5.3-1: Saturn-OL Enceladus Flyby Orbit Geometry Small targeting maneuvers assure the spacecraft passes Enceladus to within a desired altitude over a range of latitudes with emphasis on the south pole. Precession of Enceladus orbit (precession period 1.31 years) provides flybys of Enceladus and different positions relative to periapsis, as required for geophysical measurements. Periodic adjustments to the spacecraft orbit would be re quired for global mapping, but are not consid ered here. When the lander (targeting Enceladus south pole) is deployed from this orbit, the slight inclination of the orbit provides for an extended contact time (visibility) after the point of clos est approach as shown in Figures 3.5.3-2A and 3.5.3-2B. 3.5.3.1.3 Landing on enceladus A landing attempt from the Saturn centered, 6:1 resonant orbit with Enceladus requires the lander to null the relative velocity of 3.8 km/s in order to execute a soft landing on the surface. The lander for this mission concept requires significantly

Table 3.5.3-2 shows the DV budget used to design the orbiter and lander. As noted in Section 3.1.1.2.2, the assumptions for Saturn capture were more conservative than used for the Enceladus-O and Enceladus-OL mission designs, and the Saturn-OL design has no Enceladus or biter. Accordingly, the DV reserve of 500 m/s held for the Enceladus-O and Enceladus-OL mis sion designs was not held for Saturn-OL. In the Saturn-OL study (the first of the three studies conducted), the 5% tax to account for propellant used in non-DV attitude control maneuvers was accounted for as a tax on DV, rather than directly on propellant. 3.5.3.2 saturn-oL Flight segment Design 3.5.3.2.1 saturn-oL configuration Figures 3.5.3-5 through 3.5.3-8 show the general arrangement of the flight segment. 3.5.3.2.2 saturn-oL Mass Properties Tables 3.5.3-3 and 3.5.3-4 respectively, give top level mass sensitivities and a top level

3-54

ENCELADUS
Titan Orbit Enceladus Orbit Spacecraft Orbit

EN037

Enceladus

South Pole

Spacecraft Flyby Trajectory

EN038

Figure 3.5.3-2A: Saturn-OL 8.22 Day Enceladus/Titan Mapping Orbit Figure 3.5.3-2B: Sample Pass of Enceladus South Pole by Saturn-OL summary of flight segment mass by stage, including mass contingency (O= Orbiter, L = Lander). The Stage 1 gross mass is 6196 kg. This leaves a 5.3% lift margin on the Delta 4050H lift capability of 6525 kg. The approximate sensitivities of Stage 1 gross mass to changes in the masses of each step were determined as discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.2. Stages 1, 2, and 3 have values for mi/mf = 1.13, 1.92, and 4.17, respectively. However, as a prac tical matter, the mass of Step 1 (the xenon ion propulsion module), was held fixed during the design trades, since it had been provided as an input to the design study by NASA/GRC and since the SEP module was designed to accommodate a launch mass of up to 6525 kg. This means the scaling actually observed for Stage 1 corresponded to mi/mf =1.00. Additionally, the Stage 2 mi/mf of 1.92 applies when dry mass is added to the third stage (where the third stage mass impacts Stage 2 propellant only for the duration of the flybys for which it remains attached to the orbiter). When dry mass is added just to the orbiter, the Stage 2 mi/mf = 2.54. Values for mi/mf depend only on DV and effective Isp, with g and being constant, and can vary slightly depending on how propellant residuals are book kept. Compounding the effect of these changes, the resulting values for the change in Stage 1 initial mass with changes in Step 1, 2, and 3 masses are shown in Table 3.5.3-3. Scaling using this approach gives only a first order approximation and should be used with caution as discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.2. The value of D Stage 1i / D Step 2dry consists of two discrete values for mi/mf, as the Stage 2 burn is conducted in two parts to enable deploying the lander early during orbiter operations. The first part, with lander attached, includes the DV (a total of 2052 m/s) for SOI and five of the 50 planned Enceladus flybys. The second part, after lander separation, includes the DV (a total of 745 m/s)

3-55

ENCELADUS

3/2018 Few Days 2/2020 2.8 yrs SEP Earth Flyby at 1.9 Yrs 1/2021 9/2025 10 mos. Saturn Orbit Insertion Cruise Orbiter Ops Science Orbit 7/2026 9/2026 5-8 Days Lander Ops 468 Days Orbiter Ops Lander Ops Disposal 9/2027

4.7 yr Cruise

SEP Phase

SEP Separation

Checkout Deploy Arrays

Earth Gravity Assist

EN022

Figure 3.5.3-3: Saturn-OL Mission Phases and Key Events

2018 2019 2020 2021 SEP Phase 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Launch and Checkout Earth Flyby SEP Separation Cruise Phase

5 orbits prior to lander separation and 45 orbits thereafter

Saturn Orbit Insertion Establish Operational Orbit Orbiter with Enceladus Flybys Lander Separation Lander Operations

Disposal
EN057

Figure 3.5.3-4: Saturn-OL Key Mission Key Events for the balance of 45 Enceladus flybys. Breaking the orbiter DV of 2797 m/s into two parts allows some propellant savings. Five flybys was selected as a notional time to separate as a compromise between the ability to map the landing site and the propellant required to continue carrying the lander. If five flybys (about 41 Earth days) were found to be insufficient for the science operations center to select a landing site, the number of flybys could be increased with some increase in re quired propellant mass. A further breakout of mass by subsystem for each step is provided in Tables 3.5.3-5 through 3.5.3-7. Propellant was computed on the basis mass with contingency (i.e., the allocation mass), so no additional contingency was held.

3-56

ENCELADUS

table 3.5.3-2: Saturn-OL Mission DV Budget

orbiter Propellant Budget Maneuver Launch Trajectory Control Manuever Saturn Orbital Insertion Maneuver Trajectory Control Manuever Apogee Burn Trajectory Control Manuever Enceladus Flybys With Lander (5) Deploy Lander (no Dv, just mass change) Enceladus Flybys Without Lander (45) EOL Disposal Maneuver subtotal orbiter (m/s) 0.0 50.0 926.5 50.0 645.2 50.0 55.0 0.0 495.0 150.0 2421.7

DV

Acs tax (%) 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0

DV (m/s) with
Acs tax 0.0 52.5 972.8 52.5 677.5 52.5 57.8 0.0 519.8 157.5 2542.8

reserve (%) 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0

effective DV (m/s) 0.0 57.8 1070.1 57.8 745.2 57.8 63.5 0.0 571.7 173.3 2797.1

Enceladus Orbit Insertion Descent & Landing subtotal Lander total DV

Lander Propellant Budget 4000.0 5.0 4200.0 100.0 5.0 105.0 4100.0 4305.0 6521.7 6847.8

0.0 10.0

4200.0 115.5 4315.5 7112.6

3.5.3.2.3 saturn-oL seP Module Description

Top
View
DELTA 4050 H-19 Fairing

Side Views

Y Z

Y X

The SEP module uses three operating and one standby (3+1) xenon ion engines to provide nearly continuous (~90% thrusting duty cycle) thrust along the trajectory arc. Intermittent breaks in thrusting permit updating the navigation solu tion. At present, using a 10% non-thrusting pe riod for tracking and navigation updates appears sufficient. Were more time needed for tracking and navigation (in particular, for preparation for the Earth gravity assist), the SEP trajectory could be re-designed for a lower thruster duty cycle at the expense of reducing the SEP module perfor mance (reducing the Stage 2 mass available). The SEP system is single fault tolerant, and includes selective cross-strapping. 3.5.3.2.3.1 saturn-oL seP Module Mechani cal subsystem
EN040

Stowed Solar Arrays

Figure 3.5.3-5: Saturn-OL Stage 1 Stowed Configuration Showing Compatibility with Delta 4050H Fairing Static Envelope

Four carbon over-wrapped titanium tanks, modified from an existing design, provide 700 kg of xenon propellant, which is sufficient to meet the 6525 kg launch mass with a propellant mar gin of 9%. The hexagonal SEP module structure is made of 2090-T3 aluminum lithium and sepa rates from the orbiter with a clampband separation system and springs. A truncated 1194-5 payload

3-57

ENCELADUS

X/Ka High Gain Antenna 1.5 m Top View Solar Array Orbiter Lander

Side Views

ASRGs (2 flt units) Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) Module

EN041

Figure 3.5.3-6: Saturn-OL Stage 1 Showing SEP Solar Arrays Deployed

Fixed 1.5 m X/Ka Band HGA Plume Shield for HGA Instruments Thermal Mapper Radiator

10-m Magnetometer Boom

Top
View
Side View

Plume Shield for ASRGs ASRGs (2 Flt units) Front View Lower thermal shield protects instruments from ASRG heat load and protects ASRG from plume; upper shield protects non ram-direction instru ments from plume
EN042

Figure 3.5.3-7: Saturn-OL Orbiter Configuration

3-58

ENCELADUS

Top View Lander Camera Thrusters

3.5.3.2.3.3 saturn-oL seP Module Propul sion and Attitude control subsystem The SEP module propulsion system provides a total DV of about 3800 m/s at an effective specific impulse of ~3600 s. The purpose of this DV is to almost continuously shape the non-Keplerian Earth gravity assist trajectory to enable a fast hyperbolic transfer to Saturn. In doing this, the SEP module DV is effectively taking the place of the DV gained from the first three gravity assists in the VVEES chemical trajectory discussed in Section 3.1.1.2.1.2, but in much less time. The SEP thrusters have +/-19 and +/-17 gimbal ca pability in orthogonal axes which provides for pitch, yaw and roll control during thruster op eration. The orientation of these gimbals can be selected as needed within the spacecraft. Space craft attitude is nearly inertial during the Earth flyby phasing orbit, so the thrust vector is only occasionally tangent to the flight path. After Earth flyby, thrust is tangent to the flight path. Plume contamination is not expected to be an issue for surfaces that are outside a 47-49 half cone angle (30 for the plume and 17-19 for the gimbal angle). Four Sun sensors that interface di rectly with the orbiter are included. These sensors provide backup capability in the event the solar arrays block the view of the orbiter navigation in struments. The number of operating thrusters is decreased beyond 1.0 AU, as power available de creases. At approximately 3.0 AU, the SEP system is jettisoned as power available from the arrays falls below that needed to operate the propulsion system effectively. 3.5.3.2.3.4 saturn-oL seP Module thermal control subsystem The thermal system consists of coldplates, heat pipes, louvered radiator panels with embedded heat pipes, body mounted radiators on the fac es containing the solar array drives, multi-layer insulation, heaters, coatings, and sensors. Radia tors see deep space with ~5% view factor to the

Piezoelectric Corer Side View

Sampler Arm Propulsion Tanks

EN043

Figure 3.5.3-8: Saturn-OL Lander Configuration attach fitting (PAF) provides a 1.88m interface that is compatible with the four thrusters which extend about 5 cm into the negotiable fairing en velope volume (after launch, the engines deploy another 10 cm aft). This approach saves the mass associated with adding an adapter to the existing 1194-5 PAF (1.19 m interface) and avoids increas ing the center of gravity height. 3.5.3.2.3.2 saturn-oL seP Module Power subsystem Four triple junction gallium arsenide UltraFlex solar arrays, similar to those planned for the Orion vehicle (Constellation Program), with sin gle axis gimbals provide 25 kW (33 kW with 30% contingency) at BOL and at 1.0 AU to three 7 kW ion thruster strings. The total SEP module power required is 22 kW. When power available exceeds power required, the excess power is shunted. The SEP power system supplies power at 80 - 160 V to the power processing units (PPUs) for the thruster power supplies. Voltage is unregulated and varies with distance from the Sun. The power system also supplies 28V for housekeeping throughout the module. A lithium ion battery provides power during launch and for contingency operations.

table 3.5.3-3: Change in Stage 1 Dry Mass with Changes in Step Masses D stage 1i Mass / D stepi Dry Mass D Stage 1i / D Step 1Dry = (mi/mf)1 D Stage 1i / D Step 2Dry = (mi/mf)2 (mi/mf)1 D Stage 1i / D Step 3Dry = (mi/mf)3 (mi/mf)2 (mi/mf)1
3-59
For changes in step 2 Mass only 1.00 2.54 For changes in step 3 Mass only 1.00 1.92 8.01

ENCELADUS

table 3.5.3-4: Saturn-OL Mission Level Summary Mass Statement

Launch Vehicle Margin (%) Launch Vehicle capability (kg) Stage 1 (SEP+O+L) Initial - Stage 1 Propellant Stage 1 Dry - Step 1 (SEP Module) Dry Stage 2 (O+L) Initial - Stage 2 Propellant* Stage 2 Dry w/instruments - Step 2 (Orbiter) Dry Stage 3 (Lander) Initial - Stage 3 Propellant Stage 3 Dry w/instruments * Includes residuals and loading uncertainty saturn-oL 5.3 6525.0 Mass (kg) 6196 700 5496 1323 4173 2321 1851 977 874 676 198

3.5.3.2.3.6 saturn-oL seP Module require ments on orbiter The SEP module relies on the orbiter support for guidance, navigation and control, command and data handling and communications. The SEP module, off during launch, is commanded on by the orbiter. After separation, the orbiter nulls launch vehicle tipoff rates, issues the com mand to deploy the arrays, and puts the vehicle into a safe, power positive attitude (the ASRGs provide power for the orbiter but the solar arrays are required for SEP operation). Navigation solu tions will be uplinked to the SEP module periodi cally (order of every 10 days), but in the interim, the orbiter provides autonomous navigation solu tions. The orbiter also provides commanding for the ion thruster and solar array gimbals and pro vides all attitude control during coasting flight as well as roll control during single ion thruster operation. 3.5.3.2.4 saturn-oL orbiter Description All orbiter subsystems are designed to be 1-fault tolerant for credible failures. 3.5.3.2.4.1 saturn-oL orbiter Mechanical subsystem The mechanical configuration is shown in Figures 3.5.3-7. Materials and construction is similar to that described in Section 3.3.3.2.3.1. The magnetometer boom is deployed after SEP separation. 3.5.3.2.4.2 saturn-oL orbiter Power subsys tem Power for the booster and orbiter is provided by two 143 W (BOL) ASRGs and a 20 Ahr recharge able lithium ion battery. The power system, located in the orbiter, provides 28V DC power to subsys tems and instruments on the orbiter. The SaturnOL orbiter has two ASRGs (shown under the instruments and the antenna in Figure 3.5.3-7). Power available from two ASRGs at the 9.5 year point is about 266 W. The maximum steady state power required for Saturn orbiting mission phase (this was the only point evaluated) is 258 W. The battery is used to provide power to transient peaking loads, such as communications and at titude control. After completing the Saturn-OL mission architecture design, it was determined

solar arrays. Three thermal shields are included to shield the heat radiated by the ASRGs on the orbiter. 3.5.3.2.3.5 saturn-oL seP Module Avionics, Flight software, and communications sub systems A digital control interface unit (DCIU), based on the Dawn DCIU, controls power and propul sion system operation from commands received from the orbiter (the orbiter manages all navi gation and communication functions). Data re ceived by the two omni antennas on the aft end of the SEP module are passed to the orbiter for processing. The DCIUs communicate with orbit er using 1553 protocol and communicate with the propulsion system using RS-485 protocol. Flight software, which controls power, propulsion, and thermal control functions, is identical on each DCIU, and each DCIU independently controls all the operating thruster strings. No communi cation interference from the exhaust plume at is anticipated at X- or Ka-band frequencies. Mag netic fields are not expected to have a significant effect forward above orbiter interface. The SEP separates well before operation of science instru ments.

3-60

ENCELADUS

table 3.5.3-5: Saturn-OL Step 1 (SEP Module) Mass Statement

Avionics & Communications Guidance, Navigation & Control Electrical Power Thermal Control Structures Propulsion seP Module Dry Mass step 1 (seP Module) Dry Mass Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass 14 1 1 0 500 49 61 5 117 11 325 31 1018 100.0 step 1 (seP Module) Wet Mass Estimate (Kg) % Total Wet Mass 1018 59 700 40 1718 100.0 % Contingency 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 0 Allocation (Kg) 18 1 650 79 152 422 1323 Allocation (Kg) 1323 700 2023

SEP Module Dry Mass Propellant Mass (Xenon) seP Module Wet Mass

table 3.5.3-6: Saturn-OL Step 2 (Orbiter) Mass Statement

Thermal Infrared Mapper Near Infrared Mapper Visible Mapper Laser Altimeter Radio Science Magnetometer IMGCS Dust Analyzer Payload total step 2 (orbiter) science Payload Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass 11 1 10 1 10 1 12 2 1 0 4 1 10 1 5 1 63 8 step 2 (orbiter) spacecraft Bus Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass 237 32 50 7 32 4 200 27 47 6 23 3 58 8 42 6 689 92 step 2 (orbiter) Dry Mass Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass 63 8 689 92 752 100 step 2 (orbiter) Wet Mass Estimate (Kg) % Total Wet Mass 752 24 2321 76 3073 100 % Contingency 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 0 Allocation (Kg) 14 13 13 15 1 5 13 7 82 Allocation (Kg) 308 65 42 260 61 30 76 55 896 Allocation (Kg) 82 896 977 Allocation (Kg) 977 2321 3299

Mechanical Attitude Control Thermal Propulsion Power C&DH Communications Spacecraft Harness Bus total

Science Payload Total Bus Total obiter Dry Mass

Orbiter Dry Mass Propellant Mass* orbiter Wet Mass * Includes residuals and loading uncertainty

3-61

ENCELADUS

table 3.5.3-7: Saturn-OL Step 3 (Lander) Mass Statement

Lander Camera (2) Surface Transponder Seismometer Surface Chemistry Package LDMS Piezoelectric Corer Surface Ice Oxidant Detector Sample Delivery Mechanism Payload total step 3 (Lander) science Payload Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.3 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.6 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.2 3.0 2.0 14.2 9.3 step 3 (Lander) spacecraft Bus Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass 24.0 15.8 4.7 3.1 5.0 3.3 71.6 47.0 16.2 10.7 7.6 5.0 9.0 5.9 138.0 90.7 step 3 (Lander) Dry Mass Estimate (Kg) % Total Dry Mass 14.2 9.3 138.0 90.7 152.2 100.0 step 3 (Lander) Wet Mass Estimate (Kg) % Total Wet Mass 152.2 18 676.0 82 828.2 100 % Contingency 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 30 30 % Contingency 30 0 Allocation (Kg) 0.8 0.0 2.6 3.9 5.2 1.7 0.4 3.9 18.5 Allocation (Kg) 31.2 6.0 6.4 93.0 21.1 9.9 11.7 179.4 Allocation (Kg) 18.5 179.4 197.8 Allocation (Kg) 197.8 676.0 873.8

Mechanical Attitude Control Thermal Propulsion Power C&DH Communications Bus total

Science Payload Total Bus Total Lander Dry Mass

Lander Dry Mass Propellant Mass Lander Wet Mass

per ref. (f) a redundant ASRG would be required. This means a third ASRG would have to be added to the Saturn-OL design spaced 120 apart. 3.5.3.2.4.3 saturn-oL orbiter thermal control subsystem The Saturn-OL design has similar component temperature limits and design implementation to that used for Enceladus-OL with a few excep tions. For example, electronics boxes are mounted directly to the radiator panels, and the panels do not use embedded VCHPs. Also, Whipple-type debris shields used to protect the ASRGs are mounted off the top deck over the instruments

and antenna. With the addition of a third ASRG, an additional shield would be needed. 3.5.3.2.4.4 saturn-oL orbiter Propulsion subsystem Orbiter propulsion is provided by a dual mode N2O4/hydrazine system, which is similar to that described in Section 3.3.3.2.3.4 for the Enceladus-OL orbiter design, except for tank sizing. It operates in monopropellant blowdown mode for Stage 2 pitch, roll, and yaw control, as well as for roll control of Stage 1 up until SOI. Following SOI, all thrusters operate in pressure regulated mode. The combination of maneuvers

3-62

ENCELADUS

conducted in bi-propellant and monopropel lant mode over the total propellant expended results in an effective Isp for the orbiter of 320 s for manuevers conducted before lander separa tion, and 272 s for manuevers conducted after lander separation. The large difference in Isp is due to accounting for propellant residuals and loading uncertainty entirely in the post-lander separation maneuver. The propellant quantities in Table 3.5.3-4 include a 5% DV tax to account for propellant used in non-DV attitude control maneuvers. 3.5.3.2.4.5 saturn-oL orbiter Attitude control subsystem The orbiter ACS provides three axis attitude control for the Stage 2 configuration as well as roll control for the Stage 1 configuration. Four 33.2 Nms reaction wheels and thrusters mounted on the orbiter provide for slew and pointing control; 1.0 for Stage 1 and 0.1 for Stage 2. The attitude control requirement of 0.1 is driven by the la ser altimeter instrument. The slew rate (5 mrad/s about the transverse axis for Stage 2) is driven by mapping the Enceladus surface at 4 km/s at an altitude of 200 km. Rather than require the map per track a fixed position on the surface, which would require a higher slew rate, the target was permitted to move such that the slew rate was within the Cassini experience of ~5 mrad/s. This slew rate is also compatible for communication with the lander since most of that communica tion window occurs when the orbiter is moving away from Enceladus at altitudes >>200 km. At titude knowledge is provided by a combination of two star trackers, 12 coarse Sun sensors, and two inertial reference units. 3.5.3.2.4.6 saturn-oL orbiter Avionics and software subsystem With some minor exceptions, the avion ics and software architecture for the orbiter is similar to that for Enceladus-OL as discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.3.6. Some important excep tions are that the Saturn-OL design C&DH sys tem issues commands to SEP actuators, such as SEP thrusters, thruster gimbals, and solar array gimbals and deployment mechanisms. 3.5.3.2.4.7 saturn-oL orbiter communications subsystem The orbiter communications system is similar
Lander Antenna FOVs Lander AOS Orbiter Trajectory LOS

to that used for the Enceladus-OL design. The total data to be downlinked over a single orbit (8.22 days) for orbiter flyby operations and lander operations is 7.0 Gb and 2.3 Gb, respectively. Using an average downlink data rate of 40 kb/s, it takes 48.6 hours, or 6.1 days at eight hours per day to downlink the orbiter data. This meets the need to deliver science data to the science operations center within one week (using a worst case downlink rate of 30 kb/s, this takes 64.8 hrs, or 8.1 days). Dur ing lander operations, downlink of lander data will have priority. Using an average downlink rate of 40 kb/s, transmitting data will take 16 hours or 2.0 eight hour contacts. A 9.0 hour per day con tact with the DSN is available, and time will be scheduled to avoid any Saturn eclipses. The orbiter will communicate with the lander during descent and again 8.22 days later when the lander mission is complete. Link margins are 3.0 dB or greater except for the orbiter to ground omni antenna link (as discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.3.7) and the lander to orbiter uplink (2.8 dB). The geometry for communication with the lander is shown in Figure 3.5.3-9, where the orbiter path is from right (acquisition of signal, or AOS) to left (loss of signal, or LOS). The landers shaped omni anten na is pointed toward the orbiters receding path, as indicated in purple region. Communication to the lander is limited to several hours due to range. At the closest approach, lander data can be received in about four minutes at 10 Mb/s, but multiple telemetry rates (from 5 Mb/s to 50 kbps) are avail able to accommodate continuing to receive as the orbiter recedes.

Enceladus

Figure 3.5.3-9: Saturn-OL Lander Communication Field of View to Orbiter 3.5.3.2.5 saturn-oL Lander Description The Saturn-OL lander delivers the instruments listed in Table 3.5.2-2 to the surface of Enceladus

EN044

3-63

ENCELADUS

to operate for eight days. It needs a large propul sion system to provide the DV from Saturn orbit and shares some subsystem design features with the Enceladus-OL lander. The Saturn-OL lander has selective redundancy and is not fully single fault tolerant. The rationale for this was within the short lander lifetime (five days of instrument operation, eight days for communication), it was not clear that designing the capability to execute an autonomous switch to a redundant string would be any more effective than would carefully designing and testing single string system. 3.5.3.2.5.1 saturn-oL Lander Braking, Descent, Landing, and surface operations The lander is off for most of the ~ nine years be tween launch and lander deployment. It is turned on periodically to checkout the lander compo nents. While attached to the orbiter, the lander uses the orbiters power. The lander is deployed from the orbiter using a clampband separation system and springs. The target landing site is the south polar region, as in the Enceladus-OL concept. The landing profile is shown in Figure 3.5.3-10. The separation is within an hour of landing. At the appropriate point in its trajectory, the lander initi ates its major burn. When the lander is within the gravitational sphere of influence of Enceladus, the lander suspends the burn in order to calibrate its accelerometers. When the lander is about 20 km from the surface, it uses its imager and the on board maps to locate its position. It uses the pro pulsion system to slow its descent and to translate to the landing target. At a 5-km height, the hazard avoidance software uses the data from the imager to identify and avoid hazards, such as ice blocks larger than ~25 cm that could cause the lander to overturn. The lander turns off the thrusters at a height of 50 meters and the lander descents gently to the surface. The lander retains a small residual horizontal velocity when the thrusters are turned off so thruster plumes do not contaminate the landing site. The lander sends telemetry data to the orbiter from separation through landing. The instruments start operating immediately upon landing. The camera/antenna mast is de ployed and the onboard computer determines the optimal antenna pointing direction based on the received power from the orbiters signal at various pointing directions. The seismometer couples it self to the surface by placement along a lander leg and takes data for the duration of the landers life time. The imagers take a panoramic picture every two hours over one Enceladus day. The imagers also observe the plumes, with onboard change de tection software processing this data to reduce its volume. The sample collection device collects the samples and distributes them to the three sample analysis instruments. The landers avionics col lects the instrument data and stores it until the orbiter returns 8.22 days later. The imaging and sample analysis instruments are turned off on day six to conserve power, but the seismometer stays on for eight days. When the orbiter returns on its next orbit, it commands the lander to uplink the stored data. The data is transmitted at rates that vary up to 10 Mbps. The total transmission time is about 10 minutes.
Orbiter Ignition ~17 min Interrupt Burn Calibrate Accelerometers Burnout ~20 km

Controlled Descent

~10 min Free Fall

50 m 1000 m

Figure 3.5.3-10: Saturn-OL Landing Profile 3.5.3.2.5.2 saturn-oL Lander Mechanical subsystem

EN045

The lander structure is a composite tubular truss with supports for experiments and space craft components. The camera mast is deployed after reaching the surface. Figure 3.5.3-8 shows the lander and its components. 3.5.3.2.5.3 saturn-oL Lander Power subsystem The lander is powered by a lithium-ion battery with a capacity of 5000 Watt-hours. The battery is made up of fourteen eight-cell strings.

3-64

ENCELADUS

3.5.3.2.5.4 saturn-oL Lander Avionics and Flight software subsystems The avionics system is single string. The avionics includes the lander processor, a communications card, propulsion electronics, and power supply electronics. The processor is a PowerPC class unit that provides 240 MIPS at a clock speed of 132 MHz. The avionics uses RS422 connections to the science instrument for science data and a 1553 bus for command and telemetry communication. The lander can store 2.3 Gbits of science and housekeeping data, including 30% contingency and CCSDS overhead. The lander flight software processes the imager, radar altimeter, and other ACS sensor data to provide for a safe landing. It uses the onboard maps and the imager data to locate itself, then maneuvers the lander to the target while avoiding hazards. Once on the ground, the flight software processes the plume images to detect changes in order to reduce the volume of the data. Flight software margins for the central processor and memory exceed 50%. The option of using a lower power RISC 68K class processor instead of the PowerPC class unit was evaluated, but the RISC 68K class processor was not powerful enough to perform the image processing required for a safe landing. 3.5.3.2.5.5 saturn-oL Lander Propulsion subsystem Due to the high lander DV requirement of 4.3 km/s, the propulsion system for the SaturnOL lander is a Hydrazine/N2O4 bipropellant system. A comparison of a bipropellant system vs. a solid rocket motor (for the deorbit burn) with a monopropellant system (for the soft landing) showed the bipropellant system required 125 kg less mass than the solid rocket motor / monopropellant option. The propulsion system uses four identical tanks, three 458 N main engines, and eight 9 N attitude control thrusters. The propulsion system is selectively redundant, with dual check valves, pyro valves, and regulators. 3.5.3.2.5.6 saturn-oL Lander Attitude control subsystem The lander attitude control system consists of
3-65

an IMU (gyro and accelerometer), radar altimeter, star tracker, and the imaging instruments. The lander uses the IMU for navigation from separation from the orbiter until the lander is about 20 km from the surface. The major burn is inter rupted once the lander is within the sphere of influence of Enceladus gravity in order to calibrate the IMU. At 20 km above the surface the lander transitions to use of the imager and radar altim eter (on the lander bus) to complete navigation for the landing. The attitude control thrusters provide six degree-of-freedom control. The attitude control system is single string. 3.5.3.2.5.7 saturn-oL Lander thermal control subsystem The lander thermal control system maintains the temperature of the instruments, battery, elec tronics, and propulsion systems within operating limits through the use of RHUs. The lander is covered with 18 layers of MLI, including a layer of Kevlar that provides the first layer of the Whipple shield that protects the lander from particle impacts while attached to the orbiter. The lander propulsion module is thermally conditioned prior to separation to minimize the amount of lander battery power required for heaters. The thermal system for the lander is single string. 3.5.3.2.5.8 saturn-oL Lander communications subsystemp The lander communicates with the orbiter us ing X-band. The landers frequencies are reversed from the orbiter, with the landers transmitter us ing the same frequency as the orbiters receiver and vice versa. The lander uses a 5 Watt transmitter and one cross-dipole omni antenna and one shaped omni antenna that points to the orbiters trajectory. The orbiter uses its high gain antenna to communicate with the lander. The lander te lemetry data is convolutionally encoded. 3.5.3.2.5.9 saturn-oL Lander integration and test The lander is integrated and tested as a unit, in parallel with the orbiter. (see Section 3.5.3.2.8) The lander requires cleaning to level IV planetary protection requirements. 3.5.3.2.6 saturn-oL Mission reliability Reliability for this mission lifetime (a total of

ENCELADUS

10 years was used for this analysis) is moderate. A probability of mission success of .808 is estimated at the 95% confidence level. The SEP module and orbiter ACS are the mission reliability drivers due to their long operating lives in comparison with the lander. The lander is single string with the ex ception of the power subsystem and some selec tive redundancy in the propulsion subsystem. A 90% duty cycle was assumed for the SEP module. The limitations of this type of preliminary reli ability discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.5 apply to Saturn-OL. 3.5.3.2.7 saturn-oL Mission orbital Debris Protection Risks due to orbital debris were evaluated for four regimes: 1) asteroid belt, 2) Earth fly-by, 3) Enceladus plume crossings, and 4) Saturn E-ring. The collision probability in the asteroid belt is small and did not require any specific mitigation. For Earth flyby, the orbiter propul sion tanks are protected by MLI as described in Section 3.3.3.2.6 for the Enceladus-OL config uration, and the risk of penetration is similar. For the plume crossing, Whipple-type shields as de scribed in Sections 3.1.1.4 and 3.5.3.2.4.3 are oriented: a) on the base of the lander in the ram direction, b) on the orbiter top deck, c) over the ASRGs, and d) over the instrument deck. As a precaution, before lander separation, the orbiter trajectory is offset from the plume to avoid the potential for significant impacts. For the E-Ring crossing, the debris environment is expected to be enveloped by the Enceladus debris environment. In the E-ring, typical particles are expected to be smaller (less than 1.0 micron) and more scattered than in the Enceladus plume. 3.5.3.2.8 saturn-oL i&t Parallel fabrication and component test for the orbiter bus, orbiter instruments, lander bus, and lander instruments starts in November 2014 (the longer lead SEP module fabrication starts in August 2014). This is followed by parallel I&T for the same hardware elements starting in Novem ber 2015 (this phase includes lander drop testing). Instruments are then integrated with the orbiter bus and lander bus starting in August 2016, fit checks are conducted with the SEP module, and parallel orbiter and lander I&T is conducted. In May 2017, the orbiter and lander are mated for I&T as a combined unit. In September 2017, the SEP module is integrated with the orbiter and lander and combined SEP module/orbiter/lander I&T is conducted. The flight segment is ready for shipment to the launch site in December 2017 for a March 2018 launch. 3.5.4 saturn-oL operational scenarios Table 3.5.4-1 identifies the driving operational scenarios for this mission concept. table 3.5.4-1: Saturn-OL Driving Operations Scenarios
scenario Earth Flyby Saturn Orbit Insertion Enceladus Flyby Landing and Data Relay Power Data Volume Lander Design Driver Safety, thermal

The Earth flyby drives the spacecraft thermal design. The spacecraft is closest to the Sun dur ing this phase. The orientation of the spacecraft is driven by the need to keep the SEP thrusters pointed in the optimal direction. The spacecraft has some freedom in the roll axis, and positions the spacecraft to minimize the solar heating and to point the radiators toward deep space. The Enceladus flyby orbit generates the larg est data volume. With the exception of the mag netometer, which generates data all of the time, the other instruments only take data for a few minutes around closest approach to Enceladus. Figure 3.5.4-1 shows the timeline for a typical flyby. Stored data is downlinked once per day to the DSN over the next eight days. The landing is an operations driver. The lander separates from the orbiter and autonomously lands near the south pole. The lander uses its bipropel lant propulsion system to perform the DV maneu ver to match the Enceladus orbital velocity and to softly land at the surface. The orbiter monitors the landing from separation through landing, ending when the link can no longer support the data rate, an hour or so after landing. The lander instrument timeline is shown in Figure 3.5.4-2. The orbiter returns 8.22 days later and collects the lander data. Once the data has been transmitted to the orbiter, the landers mission is completed.

3-66

ENCELADUS

-45 -35 -25 -15 -5 0 5 15 25 35 45

Closest Point to Enceladus Magnetometer (all of the time) Ion and Neutral Gas Spectrometer ~41 minutes 225 seconds ~41 minutes Dust Analyzer 225 seconds Thermal Mapping 225 seconds 225 seconds Near Infared Mapper 225 seconds 225 seconds Visible Mapping Laser Altimeter 250 seconds
EN046

Figure 3.5.4-1: Enceladus Flyby Timeline for Saturn-OL Orbiter

Saturn-Enceladus Elliptical Spacecraft Orbit = 8.22 days Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Communication Window

Lander Camera Seismometer Radio Science Sampling Arm Surface Chemistry Package Laser Desorption Mass Spec Surface Ice Oxidant Detector

Day 8 ~ 10 min

EN047

Figure 3.5.4-2: Saturn-OL Lander Timeline 3.5.5 saturn-oL Planetary Protection (& Disposal) The lander is disposed of in place on Enceladus, and is designed and cleaned to planetary protec tion level IV. Analysis that demonstrates the or biter will have a less than 1x10-4 probability of inadvertently contaminating any icy moon inside of Titans radius has not been done, and is recom mended for future study. For the purposes of this study, it was presumed the orbiter would need to be cleaned to planetary protection level IV. 3.5.6 saturn-oL Major open issues and trades 3.5.6.1 seP size The SEP system needs to be optimized, i.e., size of the solar arrays, number of engines to provide the best solution in terms of cost, trip time to Saturn, and Vhp at Saturn. 3.5.6.2 iMu calibration The calibration of the IMU on the lander needs to take place within Enceladus gravitational sphere of influence. The details of how this cali bration is performed and the impact on the accu racy of the landing need further work. 3.5.6.3 Lander heaters The lander heaters are a mix of electrical heat ers and RHUs. Further study is required to opti mize the combination for the lowest power usage capable of maintaining the appropriate tempera tures while the lander is attached to the orbiter and once on Enceladus.

3-67

ENCELADUS

3.5.6.4 radiation Model The need for an updated Saturn radiation model (see Section 3.3.6) also applies to this design. 3.5.6.5 Debris shielding Conduct a study to define whether the SaturnOL Orbiter needs to include particle shielding on the nadir face (maximum particle size and shield thickness for ~30-second plume transit time). 3.5.6.6 Lander separation time Further investigation will be needed to deter mine the optimum time to separate the lander. It is likely more than about 40 days will be needed for the science team to evaluate mapping images to select a suitable landing site. 3.5.6.7 seP Module requirements on orbiter The SEP module relies on the orbiter support for guidance, navigation and control, command and data handling, and communications as discussed in Section 3.5.3.2.3.6. The effects associated with these phenomena were not fully addressed in this study. The degree to which these functions need to be implemented should be more fully ad dressed if this concept is pursued further. 3.5.6.8 orbiter Power system sizing The orbiter has two operating ASRGs, and both are required to deliver power. Even though mission life is 9.5 years, a backup ASRG (and Whipple shield) will be needed. Investigation of additional load cases, such as SOI which has ex tended transient loads for propulsion, may drive battery size as well as the need for an additional operating ASRG. 3.5.6.9 thruster Location One risk in the area of propellant quantity required has to do with positioning thrusters to provide pure pitch, roll and yaw torques with and without the SEP module attached as plume im pingent on the orbiter may require larger thruster cant angles. And, there may be an increased reli ance on ACS to accommodate the center of grav ity shift after lander separation. Each of these can cause a reduction in effective specific impulse and increase ACS propellant required. 3.5.6.10 Lander Fault tolerance The lander design is single string with selective redundancy and is not fully one fault tolerant (see Section 3.5.3.2.5). The trade between the effec tiveness of a 1-fault tolerant system vs. a carefully designed and tested single string system should be addressed for a lander lifetime of eight days, most of which is spent out of communications contact, with respect to reliability and mass estimates. 3.5.6.11 seP trajectory Analysis Determine whether SEP trajectories with C3 values below that used in this section exist. Tra jectories with lower C3 values (e.g., with more in ner planet gravity assists) would increase the al lowable launch mass. 3.5.6.12 Lander DV reserve Re-evaluate the need to hold DV reserve on the lander EOI burn. 3.5.7 saturn-oL technology needs 3.5.7.1 seP The SEP module is currently at TRL 5 and has the funding from the planetary science technol ogy budget to advance designs to TRL 6 prior to the need date for this mission. 3.5.7.2 Landing The landing technology is the same as discussed in Section 3.3.7 for Enceladus-OL. 3.5.8 saturn-oL technical risk Assessment The orbiter has only one opportunity to collect the lander data, on the next flyby 8.22 days after the landing. The lander has enough autonomy to manage its power. For example, if the power re maining falls below a certain threshold, the land er data system turns off instruments early in order to ensure that enough power remains to transmit the data. Trades that provide enough power to support a second flyby communication opportu nity should be pursued in future studies.

3-68

ENCELADUS

3.5.9 saturn-oL schedule The Saturn-OL design uses a development schedule of 73 months from the start of Phase B to launch. The durations of Phase B, C, and D are 12 months, 20 months, and 45 months, respec tively. The length of Phase D is driven principally by the length of time need to fabricate, integrate and test the booster and orbiter systems both separately and in combined configurations, and includes the four month period immediately fol lowing launch (i.e., the duration of Phase D up until launch is 41 months).

3-69

ENCELADUS

3.6 other identified Architectures in the trade space The three mission concepts (Enceladus-OL, Enceladus-O, and Saturn-OL) discussed in Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 provide insight into key points in the architecture trade space. In this section, the knowledge gained in developing those three concepts is applied to explore the feasibility, advantages, and disadvantages of other mission concepts in the architecture trade space of Section 3.2. 3.6.1 enceladus orbiter that Lands w/chemical Propulsion A spacecraft orbiting Enceladus and a soft lander have similar instruments imagers, in-situ analyzers - and have common needs for some of the subsystems, for example, communications and power. Since the gravity of Enceladus is so weak, would a mission where the entire orbiter lands be better than a mission with a separate orbiter and lander? An orbiter that lands avoids a duplication in instruments and subsystems and would be more robust, having a long-lived radioisotope power source and direct communications to Earth, through a large HGA. For Enceladus-OL, the orbiter dry mass was 968 kg and the lander wet mass was 228 kg. It would require almost as much propellant mass, 150 kg, to land the orbiter as was saved by eliminating the need for a separate lander. In addition, the instruments and subsystems would be more complex the imagers would have to articulated, the HGA would have to be on a gimbal, a sampling arm and some method to couple the seismometer to the surface would be needed, the overall center of mass would have to be low enough so that tipping was not a risk, etc. Since the science requirements could be met with a lander with a short lifetime, this architecture was not studied further. It could be considered if there were a need for a large, long-lived lander. 3.6.2 enceladus orbiter using seP A trade study was conducted to determine how adding the 2023 kg SEP module would affect the Enceladus-O mission concept. The results are shown in Case 1 of Table 3.6.1-1. The top level result is the added mass of the SEP module enables a quicker start for mapping operations at the cost of reducing the mass available for the balance of the flight segment (for a given level of required DV). For the purposes of this trade study, the size of the SEP module was assumed fixed. Flybys of both Dione and Tethys were required to enable a solution with a positive launch margin. They reduced the DV by 860 m/s relative to the value of 4977 m/s used in Section 3.4. The booster step was removed, and the orbiter was scaled up to meet the total DV requirement of 4117 m/s. The resulting lift mass of 6000 kg is marginally heavier than the Enceladus-O config uration of Section 3.4. However, with the faster SEP trajectory, mapping begins at 13.25 years, whereas in Section 3.4, it begins at 15.0 years. Staging by adding a booster step to reduce launch mass, increase orbiter payload, or increase mapping orbit fuel mass did not appear practical. A booster step dry mass of about 300 kg would be needed in order to provide a benefit. This is about half the dry mass of the booster step for Enceladus-O in Section 3.4 (see Table 3.4.3-3), while the propellant required is about 60% of the Enceladus-O booster propellant in Section 3.4. 3.6.3 enceladus orbiter with hard impactor(s) One of the science goals is to investigate the in ternal structure of Enceladus. One method to do this would be to deploy several widely separated seismometers. Using multiple soft landers is not feasible due to the mass that would be required; however, given the low gravitation of Enceladus, hard impactors might be feasible. A hard lander that was dropped from a 200 km altitude impacts the surface at a velocity of about 210 m/s. A design for a hard lander was looked at briefly during this study. The hard impactor mass was about 15 kg (including the solid rocket motor, but excluding the deployment mechanism). It deploys from the orbiter and is spun up. Then a small solid rocket motor fires to null the orbital velocity. The impactor falls to the surface and uses an airbag or crushable material to absorb the shock of land ing. Once the impactor stops rolling, bouncing, or tumbling, it adjusts its orientation and oper ates for the duration of the battery life (several days). The brief assessment of hard landers in this study identified the need for further definition in battery sizing, thermal design, communica tion visibility between the orbiter and lander; methods for deploying from the orbiter, spinning up/spinning down before/after solid rocket mo tor firing, absorbing landing shock, adjusting to

3-70

table 3.6.1-1: Comparison of SEP, Chemical, and Two-Launch Options

Launch Vehicle ~Lift Mass (kg) LV capab. (kg) Launch Margin (%) Major Modules (steps) Gravity Assists r = rhea D = Dione t = tethys orbiter + Booster 1 DV (m/s) time at start of Mapping (yrs) instrument complement

case

name

electric vs. chemical Propulsion study results Delta 4050 H 6000 4460 4460 0.0 Chem Orbiter Bi-prop lander None 2797 12.5 6525 9.7 R, D, T 4117 13.25 Altas V 551 SEP Chem Orbiter Enceladus-O Saturn-OL + ~240 kg dry mass lander

SEP for Enceladus-O

All Chemical Saturn-OL

two Launch study results Atlas V 551 4460 6160 4460 23000 23000 0.0 Chem Transfer R, D 4460 0.0 Chem Orbiter Bi-prop lander None 6300 2.2 Chem Booster Chem Orbiter R 4977 2797 4497 4460 0.0 R, D, T 4117 Delta 4050 H Atlas V 551 Delta 4050 H Chem Booster Chem Orbiter 17.5 15.0 12.5 16.0 Enceladus-OL (no sounding radar) Enceladus-OL with sounding radar added Saturn-OL + ~240 kg dry mass lander None - launches part of the chemical transfer module

3a

All Chemical Enceladus-O

3b

All Chemical Enceladus-O

ENCELADUS

3-71
Delta 4050 H 37220 23000 -38 Chem Transfer Chem Booster Chem Orbiter Mono-prop lander R, D

All Chemical Saturn-OL

5a

All Chemical Enceladus OL LEO Assy.

5b

All Chemical Enceladus OL LEO Assy.

4497

16.0

Launches remaining part of transfer module + ~ 6300 kg Enceladus-OL (incl. instruments) Stage 1

1. Booster and orbiter DV excludes Transfer Module, SEP, & LanderDV

ENCELADUS

preferred orientation once on the surface (e.g., use of a clamshell type deployment, use of a sphere with a low center of gravity, etc.), and coupling to the surface for seismometry; and time corre lation among the landers and the orbiter. Hard impactors are attractive for their low mass and the ability to create a network of seismometers and/or magnetometers. If pursued in the future, tech nology investment would be required to develop techniques to survive the landing and couple to the surface. 3.6.4 saturn orbiter with soft Lander using chemical Propulsion and Gravity Assists A trade study was conducted to determine how replacing the 2023 kg SEP module and a single Earth gravity assist trajectory with chemical pro pulsion and a VVEES trajectory would affect the Saturn-OL mission concept. The results are shown in Case 2 of Table 3.6.1-1. The removal of the SEP module extends the time from launch to SOI from 7.5 years to 11.75 years (assuming the middle of the launch window, per Table 3.3.3-1), which enables start of mapping at 12.5 years in the Titan-Enceladus elliptical orbit. Since the DV budget for the chemical portion of the trajectory is effectively the same with or without the SEP module, removing the SEP module results in a mass credit. In this case, mass reduces sufficiently to permit an Atlas V 551 launch concurrently with a lander dry mass of ~240 kg. Equivalently, the mass reductions could be used to add capa bilities to the Saturn orbiter, to increase the C3 of the trajectory (Vhp constraints would need to be considered with respect to braking), or perhaps to eliminate a Venus or Earth flyby and reduce time between launch and SOI. The DV budget used for this analysis was the same as used in Section 3.5. The lander was assumed deployed after five Enceladus flybys. Should additional fly bys be needed to map the landing site, an increase in propellant mass would be required. 3.6.5 saturn orbiter with soft Lander using seP and More saturnian Moon Flybys The Saturn-OL orbiter is in a Saturn orbit with apoapsis at Titan and periapsis at Enceladus. The science mission starts about nine months after SOI. Rhea, Dione, and Thethys could be used to provide gravity assists to lower the apoapsis and reduce the DV required for the soft lander. Lower ing apoapsis also would reduce both the periap sis velocity and the relative velocity with respect to the Enceladus orbital velocity (12.63 km/s). Table 3.6.5-1 summarizes results of an analysis that uses gravity assists from these moons (using the approach described in Section 3.1.1.2.2) to lower apoapsis from Titan to: a) Rhea, b) Dione, and c) Tethys. Results show the total residence time in the plume increases with each additional gravity assist due to reductions in spacecraft rela tive velocity at periapsis. The disadvantage of the gravity assists is the additional time required: 2.5 years for Rhea, 3.5 years for Rhea + Dione, and a 5.0 years for Rhea + Dione + Tethys. How ever, offsetting this is a total mapping phase time reduction of about six and nine months when apoapsis is at Rhea and Dione, respectively, as these mapping orbits have shorter flyby intervals than orbits with apoapsis at either Titan or Tethys. The apoapsis values selected to achieve the three resonance orbits evaluated is slightly lower than the Rhea orbit, slightly higher than the Dione orbit, and slightly higher than the Tethys orbit, respectively. The apoapsis values used for reso nance are: Rhea (517,300 km), Dione (385,500 km), Tethys (299,500 km). A one-time DV burn (about 45-60 m/s) adjusts the orbit upon comple tion of the gravity assist maneuver to achieve the resonant apoapsis. The Enceladus orbit period

table 3.6.5-1: Total Plume Dwell Time and Total Mapping Orbit Time for Multiple Resonant Orbits
orbiter orbit option Titan/Encel. Rhea/Encel. Dione/Encel. Tethys/Encel. Lander DV (km/s) 4.3 2.6 1.8 1.1 time from soi to science ops (yrs) 0.75 3.25 4.25 5.75 Flyby Velocity at Periapsis (km/s) 3.82 2.15 1.42 0.70 total Plume Dwell time (min) 5.5 9.8 14.8 29.9 3-72
s/c orbit Period (days) 8.22 2.74 2.06 1.64 orbit ratio #s/c: #encel 1:6 1:2 2:3 5:6 Flyby interval (days) 8.22 2.74 4.12 8.22 total Mapping orbit time (days) 411 137 206 410

ENCELADUS

used in this analysis is 1.37 day (where days are specified, they are mean solar days of 86,400 s). A total of 12 plume passes was held fixed among the options. A total of 550 m/s (without reserve) is allocated for mapping orbit operations. Each flyby is assumed to require 10 m/s for targeting. This enables 50 flybys, most of which target locations away from the plume. Total plume dwell time is the total time resident in a 105 km wide plume at an altitude of 200 km over 12 flybys. The reductions in DV resulting from the use of these gravity assists would reduce the mass of the lander propellant. That mass could be reallocated toward more orbiter or lander instruments, a larger lander battery, a larger orbiter high gain antenna, etc. Flyby intervals less than 6.1 days would require enhancements in the communications link or a reduction in data downlinked (see Section 3.5.3.2.4.7). 3.6.6 saturn orbiter with hard impactor(s) The hard impactors described in Section 3.6.3 for the Enceladus orbiter were also briefly considered in the Saturn-OL architecture. In this architecture they were to be deployed from the soft lander, so they did not require a separate solid rocket motor. The hard impactors were not defined in any detail due to the modest science utility and the technology risks associated with surviving the impact. 3.6.7 sample return with or without an orbiter Multiple architectures were identified with sample return capability a sample return-only mission, a sample return with a Saturn orbiter, and a sample return with an Enceladus orbiter. In the orbiter cases, the sample return vehicle would separate from the orbiter prior to SOI and the two vehicles would operate independently after separation. In all cases, only free return trajectories were considered for the sample return vehicle, where it flies once through the plume on a tra jectory that returns it to Earth. As discussed in Section 3.1.1.2.3, these architectures were unattractive due to the long mission durations and the risk of having only a single sampling opportunity. None of these architectures was pursued in this concept study. Sample return missions that enter Saturn orbit and allow multiple plume passages at relatively low speed would be worth further study, though mission durations would be long and the required DV would increase. 3.6.8 Dual Launch Vehicle scenarios Launch mass is a major constraint on this mission. One way to deliver more mass is to use multiple launch vehicles. A trade study was conducted to evaluate the operational utility resulting from the use of two launch vehicles rather than one. Two scenarios were evaluated. The first addresses launching two separate flight seg ments, one of which has the principal purpose orbiting Enceladus and conducting science operations and the other of which has the princi pal purpose of delivering a lander to Enceladus. This scenario is addressed in Cases 3a, 3b, and 4 in Table 3.6.1-1. Cases 3a and 3b use an Encel adus orbiter equipped in the Enceladus-OL configuration of Section 3.3, but Case 3b includes a mass allocation for a sounding radar (equipping it in the Enceladus-OL configuration enables it to function with a lander). Case 3a uses an Atlas V 551 with Rhea, Dione, and Tethys gravity as sists and enables start of mapping operations at 17.5 years. Case 3b uses a Delta 4050H with a Rhea gravity assist and enables start of mapping operations at 15.0 years. Case 4 uses an Atlas V 551, as discussed in Section 3.6.4, to deliver a lander carrier spacecraft in the Saturn-OL config uration of Section 3.5 to Saturn orbit and to enable the start of mapping operations at 12.5 years (the lander is deployed after five mapping orbits). Considering Case 3b and Case 4, the arrival schedules between the lander carrier spacecraft and Enceladus-orbiter differ by 30 months, whereas launch opportunities occur every 18 months. Assuming the lander carrier spacecraft launches 36 months after the Enceladus orbiter, this would require the Enceladus orbiter spacecraft to hold in a safe orbit (radiation exposure should be considered) for about a six-month period before starting joint operations (alterna tively, launching 18 months after the Enceladus orbiter would require the lander carrier spacecraft to hold for 12 months). While the lander spacecraft configuration studied was outfitted the same as the SaturnOL configuration of Section 3.5, launching two spacecraft should enable removal of some instrumentation from the lander carrier spacecraft (though including instrumentation could enhance science return) to further enhance the lander. For example, the Enceladus orbiter could perform the pre-landing survey and would provide the communications relay function. The

3-73

ENCELADUS

lander carrier spacecraft would have an HGA and would maintain communications coverage dur ing lander descent, but would not need science data storage or processing functions. The obvi ous disadvantages to the two-launch approach are cost, e.g., two launch vehicles, two complete spacecraft, and double the number of DSN con tacts for at least the cruise phase of the mission, etc., and operational complexity. The second scenario evaluated the launch ca pability required to launch two flight segments to LEO, where they would be assembled and placed into the VVEES trajectory by a large bi propellant transfer module. The required C3 for this is 19.05 km2/s2 and the corresponding DV is 4.06 km/s. One of the flight segments included the Enceladus-OL configuration (~6300 kg gross mass) and part of the transfer module. The sec ond flight segment included the remainder of the transfer module. Case 5 in Table 3.6.1-1 shows even if there were a capability to launch two Delta 4050H vehicles within 20 days of each oth er (currently this capability does not exist), the lift required mass significantly exceeds the capability of the two vehicles. In this analysis, the transfer module dry mass was assumed to be about 20% of the propellant mass. The complexities of ren dezvous and docking were not considered. With regard to assembly at non-LEO locations, there are no other locations en-route to Saturn where assembly could be easily performed. Perform ing rendezvous and docking at Saturn, ~80 light minutes away from Earth, would be complex and risky.

3-74

ENCELADUS

3.7 references a. Titan Aerocapture Systems Analysis, AIAA Paper 2003-4799, M. Lockwood, NASA/ LaRC. b. Dr. Eric Christiansen, NASA/JSC - KX. c. Delta IV Payload Planners Guide, Oct 2000, as updated Apr 2002 and Nov 2002. d. Mr. Eric Haddox, NASA/KSC Flight Dynamics Branch, VA-H1. e. Dr. Alan Harmon (Department Of Energy), NASA HQ. f. Dr. Jacklyn Green, NASA/JPL, Mission Systems Engineering Office (1911).

3-75

ENCELADUS

4.0 ConClusions and Findings A mission to Enceladus would produce science that is highly relevant to NASA goals as laid out in the 2003 Decadal Survey and described in this report. The accessibility of subsurface water enables sampling through conventional means and without complicated drilling scenarios. The SDT defined a comprehensive set of science goals that can be met, to varying degrees, by a wide range of mission configurations. The highest priority science goal for a future Enceladus mission is the investigation of its biological potential. Of secondary importance are the understanding of Enceladus tidal heating and interior structure, its composition, its cryovolcanism, and its tectonism. Of tertiary importance is the understanding of surface processes, and the interaction of Enceladus with the rest of the Saturn system. Cassini can still make valuable contributions towards addressing these questions, but is limited by its instrumentation, its orbit and by its inability to land on Enceladus. Each of the remaining Enceladus flybys can be optimized for only a few of its science instruments. Thus, Cassini cannot adequately address the advanced science goals defined here. These goals can be met most effectively by both orbiting Enceladus and landing on its surface. Orbiting Enceladus allows comprehensive mapping of its surface morphology, composition, and heat flow, including detailed investigation of the active plume vents. The interior structure and tidal heating mechanisms, including the presence or absence of a subsurface ocean, can also be investigated in detail, by determination of the moons gravity and global shape, its potential and shape Love numbers, and its magnetic induction signature. Crustal structure can also be probed using sounding radar. Multiple plume passages at the low orbital speed of ~150 m/s will allow collec tion of intact plume particles and complex organic molecules from the plume for onboard study. One important engineering limitation, which will restrict the number of passages through the plume and over the plume source regions, is that Enceladus orbits with inclination greater than about 50 are unstable on short timescales. A properly-instrumented Enceladus orbiter alone can address all science goals quite well. However, because the total mass of particles that can be collected from the plume is quite small, probably less than 2 x 10-7 g/cm2 per plume passage, analy sis of important trace species that require a large sample to process requires a lander. A lander also provides the opportunity for seismic sounding of Enceladus crust, which is the most robust way to measure crustal thickness, as well as allowing a unique close-up view of surface processes. Valuable science can also be accomplished from a mission that includes a Saturn orbiter that makes multiple (~50) Enceladus flybys, coupled with a lander. The larger number of flybys, and the use of modern Enceladus-optimized instrumentation, would provide a large increase in our understanding of Enceladus from the Saturn orbiter com pared to Cassini, though science from the orbiter alone would not be sufficient to justify a Flagship mission budget. However, the addition of a lander greatly enhances the science return. The detailed analysis of surface samples possible from a lander compensates for the lower-quality plume sampling (compared to an Enceladus orbiter) possible dur ing 4 km/s flybys from Saturn orbit. The mission design team developed three promising concepts using state of the practice technol ogy: Enceladus-OL, Enceladus-O, and a SaturnOL, with cost estimates in the two to three billion dollar ($FY07) range. All three present the possibility of providing compelling Flagship mission science, and represent single points in the architecture trade space. The knowledge accrued from these three concepts was used to gain insight into the remainder of the trade space, including choice of propulsion system, variations in payload, inclusion of sample return, and viability of dual launch vehicle sce narios. For each case, trades can be made that affect mission lifetime and deliverable mass. In addition, common key challenges, risks and technology liens emerged. In particular, the biggest challenge is in the trajectory design and resultant DV budget. First, chemical propulsion or SEP may be used. SEP trajectories usually offer shorter flight times for an equivalent launch mass, at the expense of available payload capacity. Chemical trajectories can be improved to provide increased launch mass with the use of multiple inner solar system flybys,
which result in longer flight time. In both cases,
the trajectory may be optimized to avoid propul
4-1

ENCELADUS

sive maneuvers and propellant use, or to decrease flight time by using such maneuvers. In addition, the gravity assists provided by both the inner solar system moons and Saturn itself, can be optimized with different flyby altitudes, but with the added risk from thermal effects and debris impacts. Fi nally, aeroassist may also be used to decrease the propellant mass needed in achieving Saturn or Enceladus orbit, but adds to design complexity, and increases risk and complexity. There is an additional challenge in orbiting Enceladus. Current gravity models of Enceladus do not contain sufficient information, but such information can only be obtained by a mapping mission. This model affects the orbital stabil ity, so such calculations are currently only a best estimate and risk can be mitigated with sufficient propellant reserves. In addition, the Saturn envi ronment radiation model has not been updated since pre-Cassini experience. Current best esti mates of the radiation experienced in the vicin ity of Enceladus probably over-estimate the total radiation dosage, because mitigation effects of a neutral gas torus are not included. Future work to update this model with flight data is warranted. The missions presented here all have long required lifetimes, regardless of which trajectory is chosen. One further trade that can reduce the required prime science mission lifetime is in the size and power of the communications sys tem, which can be optimized to return all data in the minimum amount of time. This prevents long data latency or low instrument duty cycles. Nonetheless, a long required mission life also has implications for overall mission reliability, and a technology lien exists for critical spacecraft com ponents to undergo additional long-life testing. This is particularly true in the case of sample re turn missions which could have lifetimes in excess of 25 years. Another overall challenge is in meeting plane tary protection guidelines. Earth flybys using RPS for power must ensure low probability of Earth re-entry. This should not be insurmountable as this has been done by prior missions. However, in the Saturn system, there are additional planetary protection issues to consider. Beyond the main spacecraft and/or lander impact analysis and cleansing requirements, any propulsion stage has the possibility of a future impact with Enceladus or another moon. Thus, trajectory analysis would be warranted for any booster stages, to determine the probability of impact and planetary protec tion level that should be met. Finally, missions containing soft landers or hard impactors have additional challenges and risks. Soft landers must maintain anchoring to the surface during any sample collection and surface coupling for seismometer experiments. The tech niques for achieving this require further study, as the surface properties of Enceladus may vary from fluffy snow to hard ice. The soft lander con cepts developed here all operated on battery pow er, resulting in short life. This yields lower science return than would an RPS-powered lander, but in the case of a Saturn orbiter, it also leads to the significant risk of relying on a single opportunity to return science data to the orbiter. For a hard impactor package, further develop ment is needed in many areas. Further definition in battery sizing, thermal design, communication visibility between the orbiter and lander; methods for deploying from the orbiter, spinning up/spin ning down before/after solid rocket motor firing, absorbing landing shock, adjusting to preferred orientation once on the surface, coupling to the surface for seismometry; and time correlation among the landers and the orbiter. If pursued in the future, technology investment will be required to develop techniques to survive the landing and couple to the surface. In summary, the architecture trade study pre sented in this report found promising Enceladus mission concepts that would provide valuable, Flagship-level science in the two to three billion dollar ($FY07) range. The three study concepts that were developed use state of the practice tech nology and could be developed in time to meet the proposed launch dates. Key challenges, consider ations and risks have been identified, some which are common to any mission to Saturn and some of which are unique to missions to study Enceladus. Possible mission design trades and their effects were discussed, along with insights gleaned about remaining trade space architectures. The SDT concluded that a Flagship mission to Enceladus can achieve a significant advance in knowledge and several mission concepts were presented that merit further study.
4-2

ENCELADUS

5.0 Team members and roles

mission design Team name Bly Di Pietro Quinn Razzaghi Sneiderman Tompkins Via Barr Brinckerhoff Buratti Dalton Dombard Glavin Helfenstein Kirschvink Mitchell Nimmo Simon-Miller Spencer Andary Barney Cardiff Folta Garvin Niemeyer Scott Steiner Watzin Vince Dave Dave Andrea Gary Steve Lauri Amy Will Bonnie Brad Andrew Dan Paul Joseph Don Francis Amy John James Rich Eric Dave Jim Lee Steve Mark Jim Institution/expertise GSFC/Lead Technologist GSFC/Mission Systems Engineer GSFC/Flight Dynamics GSFC/Study Lead GSFC/Instrument Systems Engineer GSFC/Engineering Coordinator GSFC/Financial Manager science definition Team SWRI/Geophysics/interiors APL/Astrobiology (in situ surface) JPL/Spectroscopy SETI/Spectroscopy APL/Geophysics/Geology GSFC/Astrobiology/Instrumentation Cornell/Geology CalTech/Astrobiology (interior) APL/Energetic particles UCSC/Geophysics GSFC/Atmospheres, Co-Chair SWRI/Interdisciplinary, Co-Chair Champion Team Systems Planetary Instruments Propulsion Flight Dynamics Science Structures/Mechanical General/Systems Systems Planetary Missions james.f.andary.1@gsfc.nasa.gov rich.barney@nasa.gov eric.h.cardiff@nasa.gov david.c.folta@nasa.gov jgarvin@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov lee.niemeyer@nasa.gov steven.s.scott@nasa.gov mark.steiner@nasa.gov james.g.watzin@nasa.gov amy@boulder.swri.edu will.brinckerhoff@jhuapl.edu bburatti@scn.jpl.nasa.gov dalton@mail.arc.nasa.gov andrew.dombard@jhuapl.edu daniel.p.glavin@nasa.gov paulhelf@twcny.rr.com kirschvink@caltech.edu don.mitchell@jhuapl.edu fnimmo@pmc.ucsc.edu amy.a.simon-miller@nasa.gov spencer@boulder.swri.edu e-mail address vincent.t.bly@nasa.gov david.a.dipietro@nasa.gov david.a.quinn@nasa.gov andrea.i.razzaghi@nasa.gov gary.a.sneiderman@nasa.gov steve.tompkins@nasa.gov lauri.via@nasa.gov

5-1

ENCELADUS

Consultants Benson Cheatwood Christiansen Esposito Green Haddox Harmon Powell Prince Reh Riehl Simms Spilker Strange Scott Neil Eric Larry Jacklyn Eric Alan Richard Jill Kim John Jon Tom Nathan Solar Electric Propulsion Aerocapture Particle Shielding Plume Science Radioactive Power Sources Launch Vehicles Radioactive Power Sources Aerocapture Aerocapture Billion Dollar Box Study Lead Solar Electric Propulsion Navigation Navigation Navigation Scott.W.Benson@nasa.gov F.M.Cheatwood@nasa.gov eric.l.christiansen@nasa.gov Larry.Esposito@lasp.colorado.edu jrgreen@jpl.nasa.gov eric.m.haddox@nasa.gov alan.harmon@hq.doe.gov r.w.powell@larc.nasa.gov Jill.L.Prince@nasa.gov Kim.R.Reh@jpl.nasa.gov john.p.riehl@nasa.gov Jon.A.Simms@jpl.nasa.gov Thomas.R.Spilker@jpl.nasa.gov Nathan.J.Strange@jpl.nasa.gov

5-2

ENCELADUS

Appendix A: Planetary Protection Definitions

NPR 8020.12C:

NASA Planetary Protection Policy is described in NPD 8020.7F and is summarized as: The conduct of scientific investigations of possible extraterrestrial life forms, precursors, and remnants must not be jeopardized. In addition, the Earth must be protected from the potential hazard posed by extraterrestrial sources. Therefore, for certain space-mission/target-planet combinations, controls on organic and biological contamination carried by spacecraft shall be imposed in accordance with direc tives implementing this policy. The NASA Planetary Protection Policy Imple menting Documents are NPR 8020.12C Plan etary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extra terrestrial Missions and NPR 5340.1C NASA Standard Procedures for the Microbial Examina tion of Space Hardware.

Defines Planetary Protection Mission Catego ries (summarized in Table A-1) Details Planetary Protection requirements (summarized in Table A-2) Establishes schedules for documentation and reviews Includes Planetary Protection parameter speci fications

Table A-1: Planetary Protection Categories

Planet Priorities A Not of direct interest for understanding the process of chemical evolution. No protection of such planets is warranted (no requirements) Of significant interest relative to the process of chemical evolution, but only a remote chance that contamination by spacecraft could jeopardize future exploration. Of significant interest relative to the process of chemical evolution and/or the origin of life or for which scientific opinion provides a significant chance of contamination which could jeopardize a future biological experiment. All Any Solar System Body Any Mission Type Mission Category I

Any Flyby, Orbiter Lander, Probe Earth-Return unrestricted-or restricted Earth-return

II III IV V

A-1

ENCELADUS

Table A-2: Planetary Protection Requirements by Mission Category

Category General Requirement Documentation only Planetary Protection Plan Prelaunch Planetary Protection Report Postlaunch Planetary Protection Report End-of-Mission Report Implementing Procedures (as required) Trajectory biasing Clean room assembly Microbial reduction or orbital lifetime Documentation Same as Category II plus Subsidiary plans (as required) Implementing Procedures Trajectory biasing Clean room assembly Microbial reduction Organics inventory and archive Documentation Same as Category III plus Subsidiary plans Outbound Implementing Procedures and Documentation as per outbound categorization V Inbound requirements if Restricted Earth Return are additional documentation, return/ reentry certification requirements, and sterilization or containment at Biosafety Level IV.

II

III

IV

A-2

ENCELADUS

Appendix B: Reserved

B-1

ENCELADUS

Appendix C: Basic Planetary and Natural Satellite Data

Basic Planetary and Natural Satellite Data for Enceladus Mission References for values shown in this table are color coded as shown below: a) Report of the IAU Working Group on Cartographic Coordinates and Rotational Elements of the Planets and Satellites (13 July 2001) b) AGI STK Version 7 c) Calculated Sun Planet / Moon Characteristics
m (km3/s2)

Earth 3.9860E+05 6.371E+03 6.378E+03

Saturn 3.7931E+07 5.823E+04 6.027E+04

Titan 8.9785E+03 2.575E+03 2.575E+03 1.354E+00

Enceladus 7.2036E+00 2.494E+02 2.563E+02 1.158E-01 0.2403 0.1436 0.1266

Notes

1.3271E+11

Mean Radius (km) Equatorial Radius (km) Surface Gravity (m/s2) Escape Velocity @ Surface (km/s) Circular Orbit Velocity @ 100 km (km/s) Circular Orbit Velocity @ 200 km (km/s)

( m / rmean2 ) * 1000 [2 m / rmean]0.5 [m / a ]0.5 [m / a ]0.5

11.19

36.09

2.641

Average Orbit Characteristics Semi Major Axis (km) Eccentricity Period (days) Inclination (deg) RA of Ascending Node (deg) Argument of Perihelion (deg) Velocity at Apoapsis (km/s) Velocity at Periapsis (km/s) Average Velocity (km/s) 1.496E+08 0.01635 365.26 0.002 254.65 207.30 29.296 30.268 29.782 1.430E+09 0.05493 10809 2.487 113.63 340.39 9.105 10.184 9.644 5.412 5.740 5.576 12.586 12.677 12.632 1.221E+06 0.02942 15.931 0.3567 2.377E+05 0.003599 1.3686 0.1179

C-1

ENCELADUS

Appendix D: Reserved

D-1

ENCELADUS

Appendix E: Comparison of Trade Space Concept Designs

Table E-1: Comparison of Trade Space Concept Designs

Enceladus-OL Operations Summary Mission Description Instruments Required Launch C3 (km2 /s2) Required V (m/s) Launch Date Mission Duration (yrs) Launch Window Trajectory Earth/Venus Flyby Altitude (km) Enceladus-O Saturn-OL Enceladus Orbiter w/Soft Enceladus Orbiter Saturn Orbiter w/Soft Lander Lander Orbiter: imagers & in-situ Orbiter: imagers, radar, & Orbiter: imagers & in-situ Lander: imager, in-situ Lander: imager, seismometer, sample analysis seismometer, sample analysis 19.05 19.05 19.2 4497 (Booster + Orbiter) 4977 (Booster + Orbiter) 2797 (Orbiter) 415 (Lander) 4315 (Lander) 29 Sep 20182 25 Mar 2018 29 Sep 20182 18.3 (18.8 max) 17.3 (17.8 max) 9.5 20 days 20 days 20 days VVEES + Rhea & Dione VVEES + Rhea gravity assists Earth gravity assist gravity assists 4520 (Venus 1) 1000 (Earth) 4520 (Venus 1) 1545 (Venus 2) 1545 (Venus 2) 1558 (Earth 1) 1558 (Earth 1) 5450 (Earth 2) 5450 (Earth 2) May 2030 May 2030 Sep 2025 11.75 11.75 7.5 12.25 (max) 12.25 (max) 82,000 82,000 210,000 2.4 2.4 1.3 12 @ 0.143 km/s 12 @ 0.143 km/s 12 @ 3.8 km/s ~73 ~73 5.5 5-8 N/A 5-8 36 hrs to 1 week 36 hrs to 1 week 36 hrs to 1 week Jan 2037 (Jul 2037 max) 3 1-fault tolerant Jan 2036 (Jul 2036 max) 2 1-fault tolerant (except for Orbiter ASRGs) Sep 2027

Saturn Orbit Insertion Date Time to Saturn Arrival (yrs) Saturn Flyby Radius (km) Orbiter Science Ops (yrs) Plume Passages Total Time in Plume (min) Lander Science Ops (days) Data Latency (from collection to arrival at SOC) Mission Complete Date Flight Segment Summary Number of Stages Fault Tolerance

Structure

Power System Thermal Control System

3 SEP & Orbiter are 1-fault tolerant, (except for Orbiter ASRGs). Lander has selective redundancy Carbon Fiber Composite/ Carbon Fiber Composite/ Carbon Fiber Composite/ Aluminum Alloy Aluminum Alloy Aluminum Alloy (booster/orbiter/lander) (booster/orbiter) (orbiter/lander) Aluminum Lithium (SEP) Four ASRGs + Li Ion battery Three ASRGs + Li Ion battery Two ASRGs + Li Ion battery (Orbiter) (Orbiter) (Orbiter) Li Ion battery (Lander) Li Ion battery (Lander) MLI/heaters + VCHP heat MLI/Heaters + heat pipe MLI/Heaters + conductive x-port to 2 VCHP panels x-port to 2 louvered panels mount to 2 conventional (orbiter) (orbiter) panels (orbiter) MLI/heaters + RHUs (lander) MLI + RHUs (lander) E-1

ENCELADUS

Propulsion Attitude Control System Enceladus-OL Enceladus-O Saturn-OL Dual-mode chemical (Booster Dual-mode chemical (Booster 25 kW SEP module & Orbiter) & Orbiter) Dual-mode chemical (Orbiter) Mono-prop lander Bi-prop Lander 3-Axis, wheels/thrusters 3-Axis, wheels/thrusters 3-Axis, wheels/thrusters (orbiter) (orbiter) 6-DOF reaction control 6-DOF reaction control (lander) (lander) .028 .028 0.10 1.5 m fixed HGA X/Ka + 1.5 m fixed HGA X/Ka + 1.5 m fixed HGA X/Ka + Two X-Band omni Two X-Band omni (orbiter) Two X-Band omni (orbiter) One cross dipole omni + Two cross dipole omni (lander) One shaped omni (lander) 72 66 73 N/A 2939 73 3153 18.9 228 6320 Delta IV Heavy 6300 -0.3 N/A IV IV IV 2.8 to 3.3 N/A 3920 85 1890 N/A N/A 5810 Delta IV Heavy 6300 8.4 N/A IV IV N/A 2.1 to 2.4 2023 N/A 82 3299 18.5 874 6196 Delta IV Heavy 6525 5.3 III N/A IV IV 2.6 to 3.0

Orbiter Pointing Control (deg) Communication System

Development Schedule (mos) Flight Segment Masses SEP Module Total Mass1 (kg) Booster Total Wet Mass1 (kg) Orbiter Instrument Mass1 (kg) Orbiter Total Wet Mass1 (kg) Lander Instrument Mass1 (kg) Lander Total Wet Mass1 (kg) Launch Mass1 (kg) Launch Vehicle (LV) LV Capability to Reqd C3 (kg) LV Margin (%) Planetary Protection Category SEP Booster Orbiter Lander Mission Cost Range Life Cycle Cost (FY07 $B)

1. Includes 30% dry mass contingency 2. Launch window ranges from 19 September to 9 October 2018. The trajectory modeled corresponds to the middle case, 29 September 2018. A 19 September date has a six month longer trip time but gives the highest allowable launch mass (lowest required C3). A 9 October date has a 12 month shorter trip time, but gives the least allowable launch mass (highest required C3). The mission is designed to accom modate the least allowable launch mass of the 9 October date and the longest mission duration (denoted max) of the 19 September date.

E-2

ENCELADUS

Appendix F: Acronyms

ACS.......................Attitude.Control.System
ARTG....................Advanced.Radioisotope.Thermoelectric.Generator
ASRG....................Advanced.Stirling.Radioisotope.Generator
. AU.........................Astronomical.Unit.
BOL.......................Beginning.of.Life
C&DH..................Command.&.Data.Handling
C3..........................Hyperbolic.Excess.Velocity
CBE.......................Current.Best.Estimate
CCD......................Charge-Coupled.Device
CDA......................Cosmic.Dust.Analyzer
mCE-LIF................Micro.Capilliary.Electrophoresis.Analyzer.with.Laser.Induced.Fluorescence
CIDA.....................Cometary.Impact.Dust.Analyzer
CIRS. ....................Composite.Infrared.Spectrometer
. COMPASS............Collaborative.Modeling.for.Parametric.Assessment.of.Space.Systems
ConOps.................Concept.of.Operations.
CONTOUR..........Comet.Nucleus.Tour
DCIU....................Digital.Control.Interface.Unit
DLA......................Declination.of.launch.asymptote
. DoD......................Depth.of.Discharge
DOE......................Department.of.Energy
DSN......................Deep.Space.Network
E/Q........................Energy.per.charge
EDX......................Energy.Dispersive.X-ray
. EI...........................Electron.Ionization
EOI........................Enceladus.Orbit.Insertion
EOL.......................End.of.Life
EOS.......................Earth.Observing.System
EPO.......................Education.and.Public.Outreach
EPS........................Electric.Power.System
EPS........................Energetic.Particle.Spectrometer
ESA.......................European.Space.Agency
. ESI-TOF-MS.........Electrospray.Ionization.Time-of-Flight.Mass.Spectrometer
FIPS.......................Fast.Imaging.Plasma.Spectrometer
FSW......................Flight.Software
. FTE.......................Full.Time.Equivalent
FUV......................Far.Ultraviolet
GCMS...................Gas.Chromatography.and.Mass.Spectroscopy
GRC......................Glenn.Research.Center
GSFC.....................Goddard.Space.Flight.Center
HiRISE..................High.Resolution.Imaging.Science.Experiment
HQ........................NASA.Headquarters
HST. .....................Hubble.Space.Telescope
. I&T.......................Integration.&.Testing
IDT.......................Instrument.Definition.Team
IFOV.....................Instantaneous.Field.of.View
IMDC...................Integrated.Mission.Design.Center
. INGMS.................Ion.and.Neutral.Gas.Mass.Spectrometer
INMS....................Ion.and.Neutral.Mass.Spectrometer
ISS.........................Imaging.Science.Subsystem
ITAR.....................International.Traffic.in.Arms.Regulations
JPL.........................Jet.Propulsion.Laboratory

F-1

ENCELADUS

JSC........................Johnson.Space.Center
JWST....................James.Webb.Space.Telescope
. LaRC.....................Langley.Research.Center
LASP.....................Laboratory.for.Atmospheric.and.Space.Physics
LDMS...................Laser.Desorption.Mass.Spectrometer
. LEISA....................Linear.Etalon.Imaging.Spectral.Array
LIBS......................Laser.Induced.Breakdown.Spectroscopy
LIF.........................Laser.Induced.Fluorescence
LOLA....................Lunar.Orbiter.Laser.Altimeter
LORRI..................Long-Range.Reconnaissance.Imager
M/Q......................Mass.per.charge
M3.........................Moon.Mineralogy.Mapper
MCP......................Micro-channel.Plate
MEMSA................Micro.Electron.Microprobe.with.Sample.Analyzer
MESSENGER.......Mercury.Surface,.Space.Environment,.Geochemistry,.and.Ranging
MLI.......................Multi.Layer.Insulation
MMRTG...............Multi-mission.Radioisotope.Thermoelectric.Generator
MOC.....................Mars.Orbiter.Camera
MSL.......................Mars.Science.Laboratory
MVIC....................Multicolor.Visible.Imaging.Camera
NAC......................Narrow-Angle.Camera
NAIF.....................Navigation.and.Ancillary.Information.Facility
NGIMS.................Neutral.Gas.and.Ion.Mass.Spectrometer
NIR.......................Near.Infrared
NRC......................National.Research.Council
NUV.....................Near.Ultraviolet
OPAG....................Outer.Planets.Assessment.Group
PAF........................Payload.Attach.Fitting
PAH.......................Polycyclic.Aromatic.Hydrocarbon
PDS.......................Planetary.Data.System
PEPSSI. .................Pluto.Energetic.Particle.Spectrometer.Science.Investigation
. QMS......................Quadrupole.Mass.Spectroscopy
RHU.....................Radioisotope.Heater.Units
. RPS. ......................Radioisotope.Power.Systems
. SAM......................Sample.Analysis.at.Mars
SDT.......................Science.Definition.Team
SEIS.......................Seismometer
SEMPA..................Scanning.Electron.Microscope.Particle.Analyzer
SEP........................Solar.Electric.Propulsion
SMA......................Safety.&.Mission.Assurance
SOI........................Saturn.Orbit.Insertion
SSD.......................Solid.State.Detector
. TDI.......................Time-Delay.Integration
THEMIS...............Thermal.Emission.Mapping.Spectrometer
TID.......................Total.Ionizing.Dose
TLS.......................Tunable.Laser.Spectrometer
. TOF. .....................Time.of.Flight
. TOF-MS................Time.of.Flight.Mass.Spectroscopy
USO......................Ultra-Stable.Oscillator
UV. .......................Ultraviolet
. UVIS.....................Ultraviolet.Imaging.Spectrometer
VCHP....................Variable.Conductance.Heat.Pipe
VEEJS....................Venus-to-Earth-to-Earth-to-Jupiter-to-Saturn

F-2

ENCELADUS

Vhp.........................Hyperbolic.excess.velocity.on.arrival.at.the.planet
VIMS. ...................Visible.and.Infrared.Mapping.Spectrometer
. VVEES..................Venus-to-Venus-to-Earth-to-Earth-to-Saturn
WBS......................Work.Breakdown.Structure

F-3